A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

[Mac2411]

I'll speak to point 5.

Civ4 unconditionally rewarded expansion of the empire. There was essentially no victory condition where an increased number of cities wouldn't be beneficial:

1.) Conquest/Domination: Military production is increased significantly with more cities.
2.) Space Race: The moment a city generated more commerce than it cost in maintenance, it was a net addition to tech speed.
3.) Diplomatic: Increased tech speed gives you the technologies/gold you need to bribe Civs to be friendly.
4.) Cultural: Allows you to build more temples and increased tech speed gets you to key techs faster.
5.) Time: More cities results in a higher score.

Mastering Civ4 was a matter of mastering expansion of your empire. Virtually every situation rewarded you for expansion of your empire. It wasn't a matter of if you should expand, but when. This is not the case for Civ5, and I consider that to be a benefit. It encourages varying gameplay styles.

Small empires are not at an inherent disadvantage to larger empires. In some cases (as in the case of cultural victory), you are rewarded for maintaining a smaller empire. In other cases, you can still maintain some parity with a larger empire (largely due to the global happiness mechanic, separation of research from commerce, and city-states). And in some cases, you are at a disadvantage, such as military conquest.

This makes gameplay less one dimensional as it pertains to victory conditions. It does force you to make difficult choices (e.g. should I expand to that 4th/5th city for a military/tech advantage and effectively eliminate cultural victory as an option). It does attach more permanence to your decisions than the decisions made in Civ4. It means the cost of your decisions won't be relegated to solely opportunity cost. But I consider these difficult decisions the basis of a good strategy game. I consider the long-term ramifications of your decisions an improvement. The flexibility you miss, I am happy to see gone. It rewards well-thought out plans and foresight. And to me that is what a strategy game is about.

The game certainly needs massaging. But ultimately I feel once more work is put into balancing the game, the decisions are going to be harder to make in Civ5 than they are in Civ4. The path to victory will be less evident than it was in Civ4. It's not there yet, but I look forward to it. The game design is certainly better set up for it than Civ4 ever was.

So big empires aren't (or can't be) culturally accomplished? I think the Romans and others would have something to say about that. Seriously though, I have to agree with the OP that the scaling for cultural victory is unbalanced.

 

[jowww97]

CIV 5 did more regress than progress.

Few things are great.

The mistake of the game developers was NOT use the CIV IV engine, in especial the diplomacy.

Now, we need to wait to download patch and more patchs, until fix all this problems, or the expansion packs of this game will be a disaster to 2K

 

[Thormodr]

So big empires aren't (or can't be) culturally accomplished? I think the Romans and others would have something to say about that. Seriously though, I have to agree with the OP that the scaling for cultural victory is unbalanced.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I was specifically thinking of the Romans and the Chinese. Both very big empires and both culturally accomplished.

Heck, even in the little introduction for the Arabs, they talk about their huge empire and how culture flourished there.

Sadly, ciV isn't much of a builder's game. It is a war game at heart and even then it's a crappy one due to the crappy AI. Very disappointing.

 

[Mac2411]

This is obviously what the developers intended with their design. There's just one problem: it's not true. Larger empires are much, much better than smaller empires in Civ5. The only cost is slower policies - everything else (production, research, gold) is a huge positive for large empires. You're already seeing players starting to find ways around the happiness issue, and with the massive benefits on the center tile (not hard to get 8 food + 8 production on the center tile alone!) the metagame will shift towards massive numbers of smaller cities, in the classic Infinite City Sprawl (ICS) style. You can use Liberty + Order for enormous production, or Rationalism + Freedom for an empire of ultra-powerful specialists. All of the food comes from Maritime city states; you can ignore the local landscape completely. With Liberty's Meritocracy (+1 happy per city connected to capital) and Order's Planned Economy (-50% unhappy per city) or the Forbidden Palace wonder, each city costs only its own population in unhappiness. Cap its growth at size 4, build a colosseum, and every city is happy-neutral. Now you can spam them endlessly across the map, and every city simply adds more production, more research, more gold.....

Civ5 is supposed to introduce strategic tradeoffs, but the problem is that the design of the game is flawed, and certain game elements break other elements. The game is supposed to reward small empires, and yet spamming tons of little cities appears at the moment to be the most powerful strategy! Well, outside the cheese Companion Cavalry rush.

The trend of more but smaller cities is one I've been thinking about. Up till now I've been trying to give each one of my cities maximum space to spread to it's ful potential but I'm not sure that's optimal in this game. Certainly, the AI doesn't do things that way from what I've observed. It tends to have cities closer together and the result is more, but smaller cities. It seems to work well, but I'm still not sure it works better than my approach so far.

 

[Mac2411]

Currently trying to achieve a cultural victory in Civ V.

My small, two city Egyptian empire requires almost no management. I simply set a new social policy every 12-15 turns as when they pop. I spam golden ages when I have great people to build cultural wonders, and I move a worker to a new tile from time to time, but as by borders are nearly all maxed out and up against my neighbors, this is slowly dwindling.

Soon I will have nothing to do but press Next Turn and select a new policy every 12 turns or so until I win.

Couple this with the horrid optimization, and I'd estimate that I spend 90% of my game-time waiting for the next turn, and 10% or less managing my "empire".

It is so bad I've taken to playing Wesnoth on my laptop as I wait for turns to cycle, then I reach over and hit enter on my PC every 3-4 minutes or so.

I will eventually finish this cultural victory, and then I will probably not play Civ V again.

How have you avoided being invaded by your (probably) larger neighbors? You seem ripe for conquest with all of those Wonders and the production capacity of only two cities. This is one issue with choosing this route where the game does introduce a nice "choice."

 

[mrt144]

What level did you play Civ 4 at? The rote Civ 4 strategies were:

Vanilla: Axe rush-->elepult/cavalry then do whatever you want.

BTS: 6-cities-->cavalry/rifle- then do whatever you want.

And if no copper? And if no horses? Seriously, those are contextually based strategies.

 

[mercury529]

Once you've made the decision to achieve a specific Civ 5 no other strategy is needed though. THAT is the problem. In Civ 4 there is dynamic choices that need to be made to achieve victory. And the essence of strategy isn't that choice with consequences exists, or opportunity cost.

Strategy: a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.

Civ 4 had several ways to achieve the objective of getting a cultural victory. You can get 3 legendary cities through varied means; religion, several buildings, great artists, corporations, national wonders, building culture. Civ 4 has so many things built into one another here too; religions unlock buildings, several of the same buildings allow a national wonder or a cathedral, resources could be traded to generate more culture, certain technologies and wonders could be combined with specialists to generate more culture. There are just so many different ways to achieve 3 legendary cities and not all of them work depending on other things diplomatically, land wise, that happen in your game.

So you play on Deity and are able to, from the moment you decide to pursue a victory path, automate everything and succeed? The claim that you do not need to make any decisions once you decide on a victory condition is beyond ludicrous. The proof? The AI gets advantages over you and still loses the game. Obviously strategy matters.

Ways to generate culture in Civ4:
1.) Cultural buildings gained through tech (Present in Civ5)
2.) Great Artists (Present in Civ5)
3.) Wonder/National Wonder (Present in Civ5)
4.) Civics (Present in Civ5 in the form of Social Policies)
5.) The Slider (A means of converting commerce to culture, present in the form of City-States)
6.) Corporations (Not present in Civ4 non-expansion)
7.) Building Culture (Missing From Civ5)
8.) Religion (Missing From Civ 5)

So the lack of converting production to culture and a +1 for having religion makes cultural victory so much more shallow?

I think his point is that you make those decisions early and then you are done. There isn't much variety in them. There is no need to make 75% of the buildings because there is no real incentive to.

If you don't want to abuse the AI in war there is very little to do. There were a lot more decisions to make each turn. Some to most people were not fun. Things like managing each tile nearly every turn. Checking the trading screen every turn (I really hated this one). Lots of calculations due to knowing a lot about the mechanics of the game.

Personally I am guessing they have a lot more content they want to add but they were short on time and they want to make some more money on expansion packs.

The additional content should help with given us more to do. Some balance changes to production and tech rates along with building costs can add decisions to determing what you do with each city. These things I don't see being a LONG term problem.

What I do see being a problem is that the AI in 1upt doesn't hold a candle to a human. The only "solution" is to give them insane ammounts of units which ruins fun. This is what I think will be the biggest challenge to making CiV as fun as Civ IV.

I will pose the same question to you, when you play Deity and decide on a victory condition to pursue, you are able to automate everything and achieve victory every time?

The Civ5 AI is terrible at war. So was the Civ4 AI. The Civ4 AI didn't stand a chance against humans without artificial boosts to its capabilities. Plenty of people enjoyed Civ4 in spite of this. Ultimately, that is the only feasible way an AI can compete against a human given the processing power of computers. If you object to this, you have objected to every single Civilization game ever created.

So big empires aren't (or can't be) culturally accomplished? I think the Romans and others would have something to say about that. Seriously though, I have to agree with the OP that the scaling for cultural victory is unbalanced.

When did I ever say this mechanic mirrored reality. You are building a project called "Utopia" to complete the victory condition. I think it's safe to say it is a game mechanic. And ultimately, having that game mechanic rewards different styles of game play. I find value in that.

 

[Svest]

How have you avoided being invaded by your (probably) larger neighbors? You seem ripe for conquest with all of those Wonders and the production capacity of only two cities. This is one issue with choosing this route where the game does introduce a nice "choice."

I can't answer for his game, but I can answer for a similar one I played. I had 3 Indian cities and the answer was I simply didn't avoid being invaded by my larger neighbors at all. Just when they did invade I used my 5-6 units that I did have to destroy their waves of 30+ and then went and razed all their cities after their units were dead.

 

[Mac2411]

I can't answer for his game, but I can answer for a similar one I played. I had 3 Indian cities and the answer was I simply didn't avoid being invaded by my larger neighbors at all. Just when they did invade I used my 5-6 units that I did have to destroy their waves of 30+ and then went and razed all their cities after their units were dead.

And there is an excellent example of how bad the AI is at war. Still though, didn't the AI have a big tech advantage over you at that point? I would think that would be sufficient to defeat the human player (but you won so maybe not).

 

[mrt144]

So you play on Deity and are able to, from the moment you decide to pursue a victory path, automate everything and succeed? The claim that you do not need to make any decisions once you decide on a victory condition is beyond ludicrous. The proof? The AI gets advantages over you and still loses the game. Obviously strategy matters.

Ways to generate culture in Civ4:
1.) Cultural buildings gained through tech (Present in Civ5)
2.) Great Artists (Present in Civ5)
3.) Wonder/National Wonder (Present in Civ5)
4.) Civics (Present in Civ5 in the form of Social Policies)
5.) The Slider (A means of converting commerce to culture, present in the form of City-States)
6.) Corporations (Not present in Civ4 non-expansion)
7.) Building Culture (Missing From Civ5)
8.) Religion (Missing From Civ 5)

So the lack of converting production to culture and a +1 for having religion makes cultural victory so much more shallow?



I will pose the same question to you, when you play Deity and decide on a victory condition to pursue, you are able to automate everything and achieve victory every time?

The Civ5 AI is terrible at war. So was the Civ4 AI. The Civ4 AI didn't stand a chance against humans without artificial boosts to its capabilities. Plenty of people enjoyed Civ4 in spite of this. Ultimately, that is the only feasible way an AI can compete against a human given the processing power of computers. If you object to this, you have objected to every single Civilization game ever created.

Is being able to automate everything the standard by which we judge everything? Would Civ 5 pass even the automated worker test? Look, there are clear cut paths to a cultural victory in Civ 5, just as there are in Civ 4, but Civ 4 gives to so many more options to do it with on varying time scales and different game mechanic methods.

A cultural victory in Civ 4 simply is more interesting to pursue because of what I already stated. It's not as boring to pursue as it is in Civ 5 because it is so varied and so many things in the game can contribute a different element to building culture individually, synergisticly, from top down or bottom up. In Civ 5 simply building culture buildings and not enough cities is enough. Not so in Civ 4.

I guess the feeling I have is that so many things in Civ 4 tie into one another unlike in Civ 5 where a lot of elements like culture, science, gold, happiness, all seem to lack interesting cohesion with one another. You really should look at zonks critique and the idea of swimlanes here. Any "well Civ 4 does it exactly the same too!" is simply wrong when you actually delve into the different dynamics going on.

 

[dexters]

So the dude playing is 2city challenge claims to be bored and not doing anything but later admits to defeating the AI's stacks of units when they attack, then going to raze their lands.

I'm sure there's more we're not being told, like he's probably having other AIs fight for him too. Which has been a strategy with soren's Civ3/4

oh wait, 2 CC also possible in Civ4. Rage Rage Rage. Civ4 is a failure.

Ridiculous claims are ridiculous.

 

[mercury529]

Is being able to automate everything the standard by which we judge everything? Would Civ 5 pass even the automated worker test? Look, there are clear cut paths to a cultural victory in Civ 5, just as there are in Civ 4, but Civ 4 gives to so many more options to do it with on varying time scales and different game mechanic methods.

A cultural victory in Civ 4 simply is more interesting to pursue because of what I already stated. It's not as boring to pursue as it is in Civ 5 because it is so varied and so many things in the game can contribute a different element to building culture individually, synergisticly, from top down or bottom up. In Civ 5 simply building culture buildings and not enough cities is enough. Not so in Civ 4.

I guess the feeling I have is that so many things in Civ 4 tie into one another unlike in Civ 5 where a lot of elements like culture, science, gold, happiness, all seem to lack interesting cohesion with one another. You really should look at zonks critique and the idea of swimlanes here. Any "well Civ 4 does it exactly the same too!" is simply wrong when you actually delve into the different dynamics going on.

If you can't automate and win every time, then it is clear you need to make strategic decisions that influence the outcome of the game. You claimed otherwise.

You are entitled to your own opinion. But a month after the release of Vanilla Civ4, were you aware of everything you are telling me about Civ4 right now? Alternate strategies are born with time and investigation. It is quite possible, there are simply strategies you have not yet considered. And that is what makes a new Civ exciting, the opportunity to apply original thought to a game. The opportunity for original thought and unique strategy in Civ4 is much much smaller.

 

[Mac2411]

When did I ever say this mechanic mirrored reality. You are building a project called "Utopia" to complete the victory condition. I think it's safe to say it is a game mechanic. And ultimately, having that game mechanic rewards different styles of game play. I find value in that.

Well, the first part of my statement was in jest, which I thought I made clear enough. My real point was that I think the scaling for cultural victory between small and large empires is unbalanced. It's purely subjective and your opinion is no less valid than mine on this topic.

 

[Earthling]

What level did you play Civ 4 at? The rote Civ 4 strategies were:

Vanilla: Axe rush-->elepult/cavalry then do whatever you want.

BTS: 6-cities-->cavalry/rifle- then do whatever you want.

Sounds like you didn't play much higher than Monarch, while in Civ5 the "rote strategies" go all the way to the top levels.

 

[mrt144]

If you can't automate and win every time, then it is clear you need to make strategic decisions that influence the outcome of the game. You claimed otherwise.

You are entitled to your own opinion. But a month after the release of Vanilla Civ4, were you aware of everything you are telling me about Civ4 right now? Alternate strategies are born with time and investigation. It is quite possible, there are simply strategies you have not yet considered. And that is what makes a new Civ exciting, the opportunity to apply original thought to a game. The opportunity for original thought and unique strategy in Civ4 is much much smaller.

5 years after the release of the game...

I mean, if you want to keep your argument consistent here.

The problem I'm having with Civ 5 right now is that until they rebalance the gameplay anything less than optimal right now is tedious and uninteresting.

 

[dexters]

Well, the first part of my statement was in jest, which I thought I made clear enough. My real point was that I think the scaling for cultural victory between small and large empires is unbalanced. It's purely subjective and your opinion is no less valid than mine on this topic.

I have issues with how it scales as well, it discourages even plopping down a city to grab a resource later in the game.

But that is a balance issue which we can bring to the developers and support with facts.

 

[mrt144]

Sounds like you didn't play much higher than Monarch, while in Civ5 the "rote strategies" go all the way to the top levels.

The obvious objection is that at Diety in Civ 4 required more calculated exploiting of the AI, but to that I say, Civ 5 doesn't require any calculated exploiting against the AI.

 

[Svest]

And there is an excellent example of how bad the AI is at war. Still though, didn't the AI have a big tech advantage over you at that point? I would think that would be sufficient to defeat the human player (but you won so maybe not).

Nope, I was actually always on par or even ahead of the AI in tech. Its pretty hard for them to get that tech lead when their cities are constantly being burnt to the ground. Plus I was allied with every single city state on the map with full patronage which gave me a pretty good boost to science (many cases because I liberated them). Plus liberal use of tech treaties as well (had to do something with all that cash I got from razing cities).

In the few instances where they were slightly ahead of me it didn't matter much. Its not too hard to win if they are only one unit type ahead of you, especially if your units are veterans.

I was constantly at war throughout the entire game (I never declared on them though they always attacked me first) from about 1000 BC to when I finally got the cultural win in the late 1800s. The problem was I wanted Bollywood so I couldn't actually finish someone off and take their capitol. I would raze them down to one last city left and then make peace. Then their neighbor would attack me and while I was kicking his butt the original one would rebuild and then decide to try me again. Somehow I became the bloodthirsty warmonger when I was just defending myself .

This was on Deity standard size map (well I think it was standard, I used random map settings but it looked like a standard map) by the way.

 

[dexters]

The obvious objection is that at Diety in Civ 4 required more calculated exploiting of the AI, but to that I say, Civ 5 doesn't require any calculated exploiting against the AI.

That's not really a game problem though. If they gave Civ5 AI units +30% combat bonus you'd have to exploit the AI too.

Their current method of pure prod. bonuses for AI will need to be adjusted and I'm going to keep mentioning it in hopes a dev sees it.

But the critique that Civ5 is a lesser game because diety play doesn't involve exploits X,Y,Z is bizarre to say the least. That even goes against with the 'combat AI sucks' critique which a lot of us agree with and want them to fix.

you're simply talking not having the exploits to play with, and presumably feel good about later.

I find that kind of play boring.

 

[Iberian]

The problem is a lot of the mechanics has been moved to a global level while features have been removed. This by a matter of fact removes the ability to make as many choices. Less choices = less dynamics. If I only have 4 items I can only a few choices on how to combine them. If I have 30 items the choices are much greater. Finding the ultimate set of choices for a given start with a given civ on a given map is far more engrossing and difficult.

I still think in a year there will be a lot more choices given to us because this game was rushed. I don't really see the need to defend that fact.