Am I playing Civ 5 incorrectly?

[ywhtptgtfo]

I just assembled my new computer and installed Civ 5 (with all the patches). I found the game to be incredibly boring and I am not sure why. Am I playing the game wrong?

Anyway, I played 2 games (+ the tutorials) and barely finished one.

Game 1: Standard speed, Warlord, China

Game 2: Marathon speed, Prince, Egypt

For Game 1, I built about 4 cities and then took two neighbouring capitals then I decided to go for a cultural win with like 10 cities. I ran into happiness issues and had to keep buying courthouses. I teched like crazy and was way ahead, but it appears every tech after Industrial Era is boring. It's basically just new buildings and units that are stronger but largely don't change gameplay (except for nukes, missiles, and air-units). My favourite air lifts and railroad spams are gone. Eventually, social policies are so expensive that they take about 10-15 turns to get. By the time I got to the last social policy for Utopian project, I already was moving my last spaceship component to the capital and actually won an UN vote (which was ridiculously easy). Anyway, the culture-scaling system is stupid.

For Game 2, I limited the size of my empire to 4 cities. Was gang-DoWed like crazy. Although I killed waves of enemies, A.I.'s refused to make peace and give me some of their 10k cash (which I wanted). I decided to persuade Persia to do that by laying waste to its cities and taking its capital. Result: Agreed to make peace if I offer all cities and resources. Wtf?

I abandoned the game because it got very boring. I wonder-spammed in Thebes, literally grabbing 75% of the wonders. Even so, the effects of wonders are just so underwhelming (compared to say... University of Sankore, Spiral Mineret, Great Lighthouse, Temple of Artemis, Pyramids, etc, etc, etc)... The same can be said for social policies (except for the one that adds 1 science to cottages). Even by maxing culture output, I only finished maybe 50% of my social policies. My science output also suffered because I went Piety instead of Rationalism. While I was still leading in tech, I could've been far ahead if I didn't opt for culture.

Anyway... some of my thrill moments in Civ 4 are:
- Getting Communism!
- Vassalizing
- Capping shrines
- Spamming railroads, airports
- Building powerful units in 1-2 turns with my production-heavy cities
- Massive navy blockades

 

[trueblue]

 

[Camikaze]

For Game 1, you were playing it wrong for a cultural victory. Every city you have increases the cost of social policies, so the best strategy is to keep your empire to one, maybe two cities. Note that puppets don't raise the cost of social policies, so it's possible to have a large puppet empire, so long as you are only actually controlling one or two cities.

For Game 2, don't expect to finish your social policies. IMO, wonders and social policies do have quite large effects; if they were larger, then it would be pretty unbalancing for the game.

I think the key is probably to know what victory you're going for. You seem to be rather indecisive in your aim for the game. If you have a clearer goal, and more specific aims, then you're more likely to feel a sense of accomplishment when you achieve them.

 

[Civsassin]

@ywhtptgtfo

You're over your head in CiV. Play CiIV.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

lol

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Argh... cultural victory seems to be such a hassle. I'd try once for a domination victory. If it's just as boring, then I'd quit for good.

For game 1, I didn't know the culture cost was that much. But still, a 10-city empire is not very big compared to the size of the A.I. civilizations. I eventually went for space and diplomatic victory because I got bored. I already knew I had enough votes to win for a while, but I wanted to get a cultural win.

And again, I find post-Renaissance techs to be quite lacking. In Civ 4, Industrial and Modern Era's really the time when the very cool stuff come out.

 

[Venereus]

Welcome to the club!

 

[stripes]

^^

..

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

So am I just somehow irrationally being unable to enjoy the game or am I joining a bigger club of disappointed players?

 

[Save_Ferris]

Believe me, if you wanted to see angry players you should have been here last October. I think what I've gotten from this forum is that everyone has their own opinion, and there is no overall consensus on the game.

 

[Disgustipated]

So am I just somehow irrationally being unable to enjoy the game or am I joining a bigger club of disappointed players?

The game isn't for everyone. The game doesn't have the elements that entertain me. Some people have gotten much enjoyment from it. Sometimes I wonder if I'm even playing the same game. People say it's great as a war game, but even wars I found boring. The mechanics are all wrong. I hate going to war and having to deal with crippling unhappiness.

 

[snarzberry]

mate, you just started playing the game, are playing on low difficulty levels and don't know much about the mechanics. Try a game on immortal and see how the AI creams you. Then start thinking about how you can improve and win. If you're the type of person who enjoys challenging games then get challenged.

I don't love the game civ 5 yet. I like it but I'm not in love with it. Even though it is my opinion that it cannot compare yet to civ 4 in terms of quality and depth and doesn't even come close, I'm still playing it. Because there is beginning to emerge a good base upon which can be built a great game. Give it a chance, you might be surprised and the future is only going to be brighter.

 

[tdqtiger]

Like an earlier poster said, you basically have to choose one victory path and stick with it, especially if you're going for culture. Plus, if you play below Prince, you are really handicapping an AI that's pretty gimpy to begin with. I'd say at least play on King before you give up on the game.

 

[JohnnyW]

So am I just somehow irrationally being unable to enjoy the game or am I joining a bigger club of disappointed players?

You surely are among a large group of disappointed players, but I do agree that trying harder difficulties may alleviate some of the specific issues you had with your games. Personally, I played almost exclusively on Immortal and I still found the game boring.

To each his own though.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

mate, you just started playing the game, are playing on low difficulty levels and don't know much about the mechanics. Try a game on immortal and see how the AI creams you. Then start thinking about how you can improve and win. If you're the type of person who enjoys challenging games then get challenged.

I don't love the game civ 5 yet. I like it but I'm not in love with it. Even though it is my opinion that it cannot compare yet to civ 4 in terms of quality and depth and doesn't even come close, I'm still playing it. Because there is beginning to emerge a good base upon which can be built a great game. Give it a chance, you might be surprised and the future is only going to be brighter.

The game will most definitely be more "challenging" at higher difficulty levels... which exists in the form of lower relative tech rate and higher maintenance. I highly doubt the combat A.I. improves though.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Yeah, gone are the days where Prince was challenging - I guess too many spolied kids would cry that they can't cope with like 3rd level, after all they are the best - that's what mommy always says

That's why we now have Immortal as decent enough starting level. But it still can get boring, I prefer to play Magic DoTP from Steam now than Civ5, only few weeks after the .217 Civ patch

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Yeah, gone are the days where Prince was challenging - I guess too many spolied kids would cry that they can't cope with like 3rd level, after all they are the best - that's what mommy always says

That's why we now have Immortal as decent enough starting level. But it still can get boring, I prefer to play Magic DoTP from Steam now than Civ5, only few weeks after the .217 Civ patch

Oh well.. back to Civ 4 then. It's not like Civ 5 brought anything new anyway...

 

[Aos Si]

Yeah, gone are the days where Prince was challenging - I guess too many spolied kids would cry that they can't cope with like 3rd level, after all they are the best - that's what mommy always says

That's why we now have Immortal as decent enough starting level. But it still can get boring, I prefer to play Magic DoTP from Steam now than Civ5, only few weeks after the .217 Civ patch

Yeah they should bring back Sid level.

For CIV I think diety level is close to unplayably hard. It's doable I've done it once and it was fairly lucky. But I challenge anyone to do that without having random seed on reload turned on.

CiV I couldn't say I only played it on Emperor so far and won a time victory on that as was not going for any particular victory and just wanted to get a feel for the game at that level. Only had domination victory turned on.

Lots of whiners in this forum though moaning about how bad CiV is, its more realistic, if you want totally unreal civ play Civ III and go stack kill everyone with the ludicrous amount troops you can build by turn 60. Or there's always CIV which is now modded to hell and back.

Problems are modable or patchable, where's the beef?

 

[aatami]

Solve your problems by increasing in difficulty.

 

[JohnnyW]

Lots of whiners in this forum though moaning about how bad CiV is, its more realistic

Um....what? Oh wait, that's right; it's more realistic because the AI hates you for trying to win the game in the same fashion as them. Totally forgot about that aspect.