A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

[Roxlimn]

ohioastronomy:

I don't defend everything reflexively. If you read my posts before, I readily conceded that the Civ V AI was pretty bad. I only qualified that no Civ AI was significantly better.

The game has crashes and some things I don't agree with, but I don't presume to know the game enough at this point to say whether or not the Culture Algorithm is strategically valid or not. I pointed you to Washington because it's plausible that his ability was balanced against this algorithm. If you want the game to claim tiles it doesn't favor, then use Washington or Monarchy.

As long as you don't put too much value on Policies, you can simply forgo Monuments and Temples, save up the gold, and buy every tile. The algorithm itself is fairly predictable, so you can pre-plan what to buy and what you leave to culture.

If you can simply buy tiles with Culture, then why buy with Gold? This would relegate such buys to territorial disputes, which isn't even all that advisable to do, since it pisses off the AI something fierce.

 

[dexters]

Anecdotal evidence.

EDIT: I don't actually care for the argument either way, but if a person says "optimal", you can't give an example.

Optimal is such a amorphous word in this context where it's all about 'feeling' and subjectively saying this or that part isn't fun. Obviously game mechanics favour small empires going for culture win.

I didn't really read all of the discussion and the minutiae of the positions. Only saying I've done it to see if I could, and I did.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

It gets more exciting when you allow the AI to set up and you use the modern units and their unique capabilities. Of course you can also declare on the AI and then pummel it as it suicides into your Artillery, but what the heck fun is there in that?

How about, play on Emperor, invade only in Industrial Era or later, and then never kill any AI unit on the field before you take over three of his cities?

 

[Armor (Veteran)]

After giving it some thought, I'm strongly leaning towards the opinion that V needs quite a bit more work. I was really excited at first, but the more I play the less I feel sucked in (even when I win), which has never happened to me before with Civ, dating back to the early 90's.

I first blamed myself for not adapting to change, but then I remembered that I had no trouble enjoying change from earlier in the series. Even when the changes caused me to suck, like my first game of IV where I over-expanded to the point of bankruptcy (on chieftan no less *lol*). Each iteration of the game seemed to throw out old concepts and overhaul areas of the game that needed improvement, so there was always a bit of a learning curve to learn new mechanics.

When information on V came out, I was excited. It sounded like a lot of interesting changes; hex tiles, no more SOD's, ranged units, city-states, global happiness, etc. I upgraded my hardware, pre-ordered the game, and got ready to dive in and learn the new concepts and mechanics.

It was fun at first, but the more I played the less I seemed to be enjoying it. It was hard to put my finger on all the reasons why, but a few quickly jumped out at me. The OP did a very good job explaining these already, so I'll only comment on a few. A disclaimer - I'm definitely a builder by nature, but can be a ruthless warmonger when the occasion calls.

When moving from III to IV, diplomacy was one of the biggest improvements for me. The AI's seemed to have distinct personalities and goals, and it felt like the human's actions had appropriate diplomatic rewards and consequences. It was easy to understand why AI leaders liked/hated you or each other, and the requests they made of you (join a war, stop trading with player X) made sense. There was no way to keep everyone happy, so it was important to choose your friends wisely. Angering everyone was a bad idea because technology trades and foreign trade routes were important.

The diplomacy in V seemed to take several steps backward. Not only are there many less options, it just seems buggy and incomplete. Foreign trade routes are non-existant, removing an incentive to maintain friendships. Other than the occasional "Hostile" or "Afraid", relations seem really opaque. The AI's all seem to be pretty much the same, and will come after you if they feel they feel you are weak (even if you can actually crush them). They get mad at you when THEY settle close to you, when you join in a war on their side at their request, or even when you liberate them (!). They start repeated wars and call YOU bloodthirsty afterwards. Dealing with the AI's in V is giving me flashbacks to I, to be honest.

The City States are a bit easier to understand, but I can't say I really like how they work. Their quests for you to build stuff or generate a gp just seem too random. Completing a random quest or paying a gold bribe just doesn't give me the feeling of building a real ally. The maritime ability and how it scales across multiple cities seems overpowered, especially given the lack of large food bonuses from regular city tiles. I will admit the ability to donate units to City States to fight proxy wars is pretty cool.

There are some other things about V that I like in principle, but not how they are currently executed. One example is culture expansion and purchasing tiles. I really like the idea of fixed borders; the Civ IV culture wars seemed silly. I like the option of purchasing tiles, too. My only real complaint is that the player has no control over where the city naturally grows, and the choices of tiles is suboptimal. i.e. it will grab faraway, worthless flatland or sea tiles, and take forever to expand to a hill or a tile on the opposite side of a river.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

There really is an "oh my" arguement going on here. Jed and others, have said that they just don't find the game interesting or any fun to play (or even much of a challenge), after the initial "ooh its new and sparkly" feeling has worn off.

And the responses from the pro CIv V side have been quite unbelieveable to me. They basically boil down to: make the game more difficult for yourself, by playing the game in the most perverse manner you can. We're talking the most obtuse house rules here.

Come on folks. House rules, are made by definition to make a game that you have been playing for a long, long time, and know inside out, a challenge again. NOT a game that's barely off the shelf.

I have to apologise for the fact that I still don't own the game, (which really irks me, as a lifelong addict of the series), but I've taken the advice of friends here and elsewhere, and read many reviews, both pro and con, and voted no with my wallet.

Really the most coherent pro arguement I've heard, is "when they iron out all the bugs, fix a lot of the gameplay issues, and the decent modders get the chance to work on it, It might be a half decent game"...which if it wasn't so unbelieveably sad, would be funny. Basically saying, when someone takes the core engine, and writes a new game for it....

 

[hclass]

Hi,

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

In Civ3 or Civ4, I normally expand slower than the A.I. particularly in early eras. Generally speaking, that is because I am a human, smarter and know I need to do something better than simply pumping indefinite settlers and build cities just to build more cities.

The AI in all earlier CIV version are always putting expansion as their highest priority particularly when there still lot of unoccupied tiles, anyone who have played those games know.

As I said, I enjoy reading dispute in this thread, don't spoil that with things like the below. I think I have read enough in the forum about how one end a Civ5 game with a world of sparse cities (with lot of unoccupied tiles)

masterminded:
Tell you what, if you still have Civ III, load that up on the lowest difficulty setting, play it up to 0 AD and then post the results of AI expansion.

I am quite confident in how badly the AI expands at low settings because my friend likes playing at only the lower settings of Civs, far below where he should be playing, and the AIs don't expand worth anything in those games.

Didn't you know that producing settlers take time?
Didn't you know that moving a settler to a spot take time?

Why are you choosing 0 AD? Answer me!...

Didn't you know each turn jumps 100 years then 50 years then 10 years in early era, then it becomes 1 year each turn in later era?

A fair comparison should be:
1. Count the number of games that your friends has played and has kept its save game files. Let this be N.
2. Load and look for the "earliest turn" that you find the globe has been covered enough, in each of the N games. Write down the year of that turn. I know this is hard, take your time... I can wait.
3. Then average out in what year it takes Civ3 AI (and you) to cover most of the map for all the N games.

Finally, there you are, that is the year you should look at, in any Civ5 game, see how well sprawn the cities at that time... and please post the result.
Also, bear in mind that, you must have roughly the same number of AI opponents in the above comparison. i.e. the number of AI opponents to start with did count into the matter.

Have you ever listened to a song whose lyrics is something like "I got a feeling, somebody is watching me...urh! urh! I got a feeling, somebody is watching me..."
My advice is, please keep your arguments furnished with convincing facts, don't make up stories... Remember, we are watching you... eh eh eh...

 

[man-erg]

First, you claim that critics dislike this game because it isn't similar to Civ IV. This is an unfair representation.

I agree that this idea that most criticism of V is because it isn't "IV.5" is wrong. One flaw with it is that as many of us have played the series since 1 and 2, if we were that phobic about new versions, we would obviously NEVER have moved to 4.

Of course there will always be some who prefer the previous version. But Civ2 was almost unanimously recieved as an improvement over 1. By many of us who are now unimpressed with V. Civ 3, not so good. I dare say those who didn't like it so much were accused of "wanting Civ 2.5". Then 4 was again almost unanimously received as better than 3, and for many people better than 2.

In some ways Civ 5 is Civ 3 all over again. But in key areas, it's actually very different. 3 introduced many new concepts, but didn't remove any of the fundamentals of previous releases. Civ 4 refined some of the concepts and introduced more. Civ 5 has not added anything significantly new. It has *changed* some fundamentals. Simplified them in just about every case. And it has removed many things. Whether they will be added or built on in expansions, patches, or Civ 6. Or whether even more will be taken out to sell to the console crowd, who knows?

 

[paganizer]

Have to agree with OP. Well put.

 

[AeonOfTime]

What needs to be focused on is 2k's mad lust for money (the real thing hurting not only the players, but the developers who get blamed for Civ 5's massive failures.)

Oh yes! Why don't they make 2k a non-profit organization?

 

[hclass]

Oh yes! Why don't they make 2k a non-profit organization?

But I believe you can't sell a product for profit if you are non-profit organization, right?
Then how are we going to get Civ?

Donate 1$ to get Civ6?

 

[Stalker0]

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.

However, a similar comment may have a completely different point of view: "I don't like Civ V because there are too few things for me to do".

The comments are similar in that both posters feel the game is missing something. But in the first post, the game is missing Civ IV specific elements. In the second post, the poster doesn't necessarily mind that the game doesn't have religion and espionage...but he does feel that more should have been put in to replace these mechanics.


Another more refined example: "I don't like Civ V because buildings take too long to build."

Taken in just that context, the poster could simply be saying that he is used to the speed Civ IV building took, and therefore Civ V is doing it "wrong". And if that is his sole point, then the argument is flawed and the only merit it carries is the "nostalgia argument".

However, the point can be taken further. Points like:

"Buildings are not balanced with teching. Before I finish building a building superior buildings are already available due to quick teching."
"Buildings that speed up cost of unit production are not worth it because they take too long to build compared to units."
"The first 100 turns of the game generally is just a click end turn game...mainly because a lot of the early infrastructure takes too long to build".

These points give a well constructed reason why buildings take to long to build...and takes it past a simple "Civ IV did it this way so Civ V should do the same".

These are the important arguments people should listen to, and the arguments the Pro Civ V crowd should respect as legitimate, intelligent arguments.

 

[JudgeDeath]

However, the point can be taken further. Points like:

"Buildings are not balanced with teching. Before I finish building a building superior buildings are already available due to quick teching."
"Buildings that speed up cost of unit production are not worth it because they take too long to build compared to units."
"The first 100 turns of the game generally is just a click end turn game...mainly because a lot of the early infrastructure takes too long to build".

These points give a well constructed reason why buildings take to long to build...and takes it past a simple "Civ IV did it this way so Civ V should do the same".

These are the important arguments people should listen to, and the arguments the Pro Civ V crowd should respect as legitimate, intelligent arguments.

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".

 

[ohioastronomy]

Have you ever played a large marathon game in Civ 5? Serious question. Just as the performance problems of the game can be severe for really big maps and not for small ones, the timing issues just get awful for slow speeds.

I did marathon in Civ 4 all of the time and ...I mean, come on. 52 turns for a worker at the start of the game at marathon in Civ 5?

 

[Jediron]

Roxlimn
It gets more exciting when you allow the AI to set up and you use the modern units and their unique capabilities. Of course you can also declare on the AI and then pummel it as it suicides into your Artillery, but what the heck fun is there in that?

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

 

[SuperJay]

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".

Same is true in reverse - you're just repeating the same old "you just want it to be Civ 4" nonsense over and over again, while pretending like you're actually making a worthwhile point. You conveniently skip over all the points your "opponents" do make, and simply insult the people you with whom disagree.

As Masterminded said: "You're convincing no one with such behavior."

 

[Misterboy]

Really the most coherent pro arguement I've heard, is "when they iron out all the bugs, fix a lot of the gameplay issues, and the decent modders get the chance to work on it, It might be a half decent game"...which if it wasn't so unbelieveably sad, would be funny. Basically saying, when someone takes the core engine, and writes a new game for it....

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 dissenters 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 dissenters, 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

 

[hclass]

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.

I pretend I have not seen your extreme example and I am curious, in this case either you or the person you disagree with has stated a false story about the Civ5 building Vs Tech timing. I think it is quite simple and straight forward to be verified...

Can anyone clear my doubt?
I mean is point 1 valid as a fact of Civ5?

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!!!

I am one of those don't really like Civ4. So you can be sure I am not comparing Civ5 with Civ4.

Isn't point 2 a simple maths question? I mean you just divide the #turns it took to to build that building (say it is N turns) with the number turns it saves you to build a unit (say it is M). N / M should tell you after how many units you built (with the present of that building) that you will start enjoying the speed up advantage.
If you only start enjoying speed up advantage after producing a dozen of units, then probably it does not worth constructing that building and the reverse is also true.

Can anyone do that simple calculation and see who tells the truth about Civ5 in this case?

So it is either worth building in any city or not worth building in any city... I don't understand why the same building can become worth building in 1 city (or 2 or 3 cities) but not more... afterall it is always that same building.

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.

May I ask a simple question (I try not to side the other party in this case), what did you actually do in the first 1 to 100 turns? I mean what are you busy about before you press [Next turn] button?
I got a feeling you must have found something really interesting to do in turn 1 to 100, why don't you just share it with others?

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".

Your opponent have made a big mistake by not providing facts and figures in his examples.

You win! for this round.

 

[Misterboy]

So it is either worth building in any city or not worth building in any city... I don't understand why the same building can become worth building in 1 city (or 2 or 3 cities) but not more... afterall it is always that same building.

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. 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.

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.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

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.

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.

 

[JudgeDeath]

May I ask a simple question (I try not to side the other party in this case), what did you actually do in the first 1 to 100 turns? I mean what are you busy about before you press [Next turn] button?
I got a feeling you must have found something really interesting to do in turn 1 to 100, why don't you just share it with others?

Let's see - I have decide how to move my units to uncover the map, make decisions about what to do with Barbarians uncovered, decide which Policies to take, which techs to aim for, what my Workers should develop, and what tiles each City should be producing - these need to be changed regularly, and what the Cities should be building. Of course not all of these require decisions on every turn, but I don't see that as a problem. I wasn't an excessive tweaker in Civ IV.