Are the Devs responding somewhere?

you must be playing on a super low difficulty than because wars break out every single game with me and i don't start them whether i have a military or not.
It depends much more on mix of civs and geography than difficulty level (other than the lowest). I just finished a deity game and had one minor border clash until the end of the game. Even among the AIs, there were only two cities taken in the entire game. I don't see anything that needs immediate attention by the devs there.
 
You see, whilst I've been too time starved to get through many games, I've so far only been in one War, started by me. I've had AI friends for the length of entire games, though most of the World seems to hate eachother. The rest seem to be just UI points (which are fair, the UI fairly poor).

Whilst there should be some balance, the AI doesn't seem half as bloodthirsty as some seem to suggest. Are people just not building military at all, and expecting the AI to not take advantage of the lack of early game warmongering penalties?

Although I only play on Ludicrous-size maps, I've found the same.

I have been beaten fair and square through my own mistakes: either by not building enough military, or by letting other civs build
close to me and taking prime territory I should have settled, or a whole raft of other stupid mistakes that I made.
 
Why don't you practice what you preach? You lambast me for saying the game is broken, yet you insist the game isn't broken. You cannot put forward your opinion as fact. Saying it isn't broken because you enjoy it is presenting your opinion as fact.

Very few people would complain about Civ V if it wasn't broken. I guess you live under a rock and ignore the vast amounts of criticism it received.

You're going round in circles and accusing me of what you are doing yourself.

No, because saying that it's broken is not an opinion. It either is or it isn't. And it isn't. You just don't like it. Broken means that either it doesn't work or it doesn't work as intended, neither of which is true. It totally works, it is immensely enjoyable, proven by the fact that millions of people enjoy it, it is pretty well balanced, it has no major bugs, there have been countless mods released for the game, and it is still played by millions of people.

You can argue that there are weak aspects that could be improved upon, but that in no way means that it's fundamentaly flawed. You may not like its mechanics but you cannot say it's objectively crap.
 
No, because saying that it's broken is not an opinion. It either is or it isn't. And it isn't. You just don't like it. Broken means that either it doesn't work or it doesn't work as intended, neither of which is true. It totally works, it is immensely enjoyable, proven by the fact that millions of people enjoy it, it is pretty well balanced, it has no major bugs, there have been countless mods released for the game, and it is still played by millions of people.

You can argue that there are weak aspects that could be improved upon, but that in no way means that it's fundamentaly flawed. You may not like its mechanics but you cannot say it's objectively crap.

Silly binary logic.
Some parts can be broken and the whole can still function at 90% as intended.
It's what level of "broken" people are prepared to accept that matters.
Personally, I'm happy to wait for any fixes and I'm having great fun on Ludicrous-size maps. I've only had some very minor intermittent problems, like the game freezing when I want to exit to desktop.
YMMV.
 
If a part is not functional, you don't say X is broken. If your car is running you don't say "my car is broken" because one of the door locks is stuck. Plus, the post above refers to Civ 5, which has no remaining major bugs. What the other user is talking about is not bugs but the game's mechanics, such us one unit per tile.
 
Top Bottom