You're assuming people come in here to bash the game for shallow reasons, when you have no idea as to the motivations and reasoning behind much of the critique. I posted my thoughts after 30 hours of play. I believe the AI is broken. Apparently, a lot of people agree with me. I've had half a dozen rival civilizations "rage quit", giving me literally everything but the capital in peace terms during a war I haven't taken any action in. I've been able to conquer the world with FIVE units. I've seen the AI let itself get chewed to pieces by ranged attacks for literally no reason. The AI has no idea how to play the game. Sorry, but it is broken. I have good faith the game will be vastly improved over time, but my thoughts aren't shallow and unfounded. People giving me the "civ 4.5" argument really irk me. They have no clue what they are talking about.
As a old player of CIV series for 15 years, I have to say CIV5 is the worst
- Thread starter dickens
- Start date
- Status
Actually, this is one thing I'll agree with - the main map UI excluding the mini-map (which is a huge step backwards) I do like a fair bit.
In particular, one big plus I'll give V over IV -- you can move around and view the map while Next Turns are processing, which is a lot better than locked into place IV (and not infrequent CTDs if you DID accidentally click while processing).
1. When I read about features and all things that will be in game I was like "OMG this will be fantastic" and started to count days till release...
2. When Demo came out, I was like "OMG its awesome, only 4 days till full game"
3. Didn't create any thread, and I am utterly disappointed with this one (game, not thread
)Now, on paper, and in interviews all new things sounded brilliant. But they don't do so well in game.
Offcourse, I'm aware that we're all different, and that things I don't like, someone else will love, so there's no point in making statements like "this is best/worst Civ ever". Every single game is best for someone, and worst for someone else.
I myself don't find this Civ so bad, some things I actually like. But its not optimized to give that "wow" effect that IV did. Civ IV was best for me from start. I played it through 5 years with almost same enthusiasm and I kept getting back. Civ 5 did start with "wow" effect, but turn after turn it faded more and more, for various reason. In the end I was pressing end turn for last 50 turn waiting for UN to research/build so I can claim diplomatic Victory.
It was saddest moment in my CIV playing history that I went in bed with relief instead of starting new game for tomorrow
I'll say again. Its not bad game, It gots some great ideas. But at moment, It's just badly optimized and it feels more like working then playing. However, I still have fate in patches and future mods that will pull out best of this concept and make it fun again..
Here's a suggestion for you.
Instead of playing the same old war-rinse-repeat (which we all know works wonders because no game in history has had an efficient strategy war AI), why not try for one of the other victories?
Instead of expecting Firaxis to tell you sheep how to have fun, why not make your own fun in the game?
The problem is every other aspect of the game is as easy as warmongering. Everything not warmongering is production oriented, even culture. There are just a few more ways to skin the cat outside of warmongering, but it is the same thing, instead of mass producing military you are mass producing culture or industry for the various ways to win.
Militarily speaking, Civ5 has failed, I agree with you that there is no smart war strategy game AIs. Up to Civ4 it really didn't matter because the AI had a significant advantages and there really wasn't a lot of tactics required, AI was challenging because of the sheer volume it was able to throw at you.
The AI can't do that in Civ5. There are significant bottlenecks for military now without stacking, terrain is more critical and bombardment is far more effective than it was before and the AI can't make logical tactical decisions and never learns from what players are doing.
AI is not capable of basic strategic logic of putting melee up front, ranged behind, protect bombardment units, build and hold rather than create the lemming congo line of failure and then hit with force.
The difference between a passable AI and a terrible AI is how intelligent the AI is. They can't think and can only execute what they have been instructed to do so they are limited by the scope of the programmers.
While Civ has more parameters and is more complex than say a game of Chess, a computer Chess AI is passable because the coders have got to the point they can react to what a player is doing. Civ5's AI is horrible. It is horrible at a military strategic level and it is horrible at almost every level.
I was messing around with a game I was experimenting with a few things and wasn't taking it seriously when I was attacked by the Russians, she had 10 cities and I had 2. I was able to bottleneck the AI on land and had a big advantage by sea, one thing I have noticed the AI is extremely poor at building naval or air units. She tried to offer peace but I kept rejecting. If I moved out of my defensive position I would have been crushed, but she couldn't break through the bottleneck. It was a stalemate, but i was backed into a corner and she was rapidly out-teching me.
So she offered peace again, this time offering 5 of her 10 cities, including one very close to her capital. I took it. One shocking AI decision put me from a bad situation to a ridiculously good one. I loaded up the with military, piled as much as I could into the city adjacent to Moscow and attacked again not long after and wiped out the Russian player.
That game was effectively over at that point, playing it out would have just been going through the motions.
If the AI is too simple it doesn't make for enjoyable games. I wasn't even playing that game from a military perspective, I just built enough units to defend my two cities. The AI capitulated without having lost a city or had one in any real danger.
You just can't put out military units and mechanics like they have with Civ5 and give it an extremely basic AI, it totally kills the non Player vs Player element and the MP functionality is currently woeful and unstable.
Other than graphics, or other stuff I have no experience with, ie modding, Civ 5 is significantly inferior than Civ 4 as a game, in every way. This feels more like a console game than a Civ game.
charon2112
King
See now I love the new mini-map, it's much cleaner (to me anyway) and more useful. One HUGE thing I love in V is the ability to click and drag the landscape around instead of edge-scrolling. I've wanted that since day one.
Ain't true at all.
They might be louder, but also there is now hundreds of defenders who joined these forums during last few weeks, and it seems only to defend the "best civ game ever", even if it the only one thay have played (join date during this fall).
Also of course we meet most civ 5 fans from this section of fanatics forums (civ5 general discussion), not every civ4 fan, that is why civ5 got much positive attraction.
I would say that it's actually same AI.
I was just thinking in my game, when holding one narrow map point with archer, trebuchet and swordman and watching dozens and dozens German rushing onto fortified swordman and getting destroyed by ranged attacks: "If this was Civ 4, he would brake through with stacked units".
AI doesn't have idea about tactical situation on map. They will follow similar pattern no matter if their units are 2 tech leves higher or lower. Which doesnt make any sense...
Offcourse, that means that playing MP is probably better, but there comes other problem.
Civ Perks and special units.
For perks, everyone already noticed some will be useless in multiplayer. I don't know if anyone noticed upgrading system with units. All abilities carry over to upgraded unit. Thats not big difference then in Civ IV, but....
If you get Aztec Jaguar with 50% in jungle and healing after kill, it will carry those two over all the way up to mechanized infantry. Let's compare it to english longbowman. It got +3 range which is awsome... but it also gets upgraded to mechanized infantry, not to mention if you got few level as archer unit and too barrage 1,2,3... You'll have level 4 unit with +3 range that is effective as one with 0 exp, because MEch infantry isn't ranged unit
. As I stated before, game needs huge rebalance. not cause it sucks, but cause it doesn't play as it should..
Amen.
Forget "1000 hours" - Scary as it sounds to write, I'd be willing to bet if you added up all the time I spent playing Civ since I, it very well might end up being literally months... perhaps verging on a year (plus? Wow... scary).
I've had a lot of epic games that literally took MONTHS to finish - heck, while looking back at IV and III last night, I loaded up a few really old saves... and this says something for a game - I remember a lot of them!
I, too, have given V a chance.
It was literally years before I could beat IV on anything above prince.... now? One week in, I'm winning (or would win, if I didn't get bored with NT) on higher levels. What's more - games (and I'm playing marathon) are taking only a day or so.
AIs are always a problem, in all games.... It's the cross you bear if you play a SP-focused vs. MP-focused series... But - you're right. It's so bad in V that I'm seriously considering "House Rules". That's just.... well... that's sad. I've NEVER had to consider "House Rules" before. The closest would probably be the Civ II exploit were you could multi-build wonders, then when one city finished it -- use the others as hammer farms to prebuild a future wonder.... but then, I liked the exploit so much that I never instituted the house rule!
charon2112
King
there's just as many who joined just to complain about the "worst Civ game ever!"...probably more.
One of which posted right after the guy you quoted. But, as someone else pointed out, the forums looked exactly like this when Civ 4 was released, which really comes as no surprise. Unfortunately, it appears that the strategy game genre has attracted the World of Warcraft crowd. This forum has become eerily reminiscent of the forum of just about every single new mmo that's been released in the last three to four years.
charon2112
King
Reading those old civ IV posts are hilarious..."worst Civ ever!", "dumbed down!", "bad graphics"...it's total deja vu.
I had a dog who once ran the vast majority of a mile behind me riding a beautiful bicycle, I suspect there was a sunset on the horizon too. Oh yes, only a selected few wouldn't shudder with such a view.
O my..
Just to get back to some sort of rational posting here I leave you another poll maybe more related to what some of us are trying to elaborate in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384558
If you're refering to me, and you do.. don't hesitate... Just quote my "Worst Civ ever" part of the post
Admittedly you're not as bad as many others, but you fit into the 'opposite' category in my opinion. Twice you've claimed the game isn't up to par, and obviously just made an account to post it.
Nothing against you, or your opinion, and maybe I am jaded by having seen this whole scene play out repeatedly on every mmo launch forum post-WoW, but it does get old to see a certain segment of a community get so personally offended by the way a game plays or its mechanics or lack thereof. Not saying you did, either, but a lot of people here really do act like Jon Shafer or Sid or some one at Firaxis personally insulted them while running over their dog...repeatedly, just because Civ 5 doesn't meet their personal standards.
Nothing against you, or your opinion, and maybe I am jaded by having seen this whole scene play out repeatedly on every mmo launch forum post-WoW, but it does get old to see a certain segment of a community get so personally offended by the way a game plays or its mechanics or lack thereof. Not saying you did, either, but a lot of people here really do act like Jon Shafer or Sid or some one at Firaxis personally insulted them while running over their dog...repeatedly, just because Civ 5 doesn't meet their personal standards.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
If you haven't played every iteration of Civilization from 1 through 5 thoroughly, then you don't know SQUAT about Civilization!
Likes_Civing
Warlord
Interesting thread.
I would sell my CIV V in a heartbeat.
I can't stand it. It is not fun. It is not deep. My brother just got beyond the sword. We used to play warlords.
Now it is max 4.
Can I uninstall from Steam to sell this dog?
I just think the defends rely on you hate change. I KNOW that is NOT it. I mean when something isn't fun, no AI it's over.
I have not looked at this site in about a week to see what would happen. I think the sentiment is getting worse, big time.
Someone early on posted there is no re-playability. As we play more, folks are figuring out why.
I struggle to win on Immortal in 4. 5 is a joke.
Panzer General and CIV do NOT mix.
As I posted, this was an attempt to make 5 a wargame.
Look at the detail in the unit promotions. That isn't civ. 10's of them. You can see where the energy went.
5 is just not fun and it's not flexible.
Can't tax? No policy changes really. Are you serious. Someone posted what is wrong with that. have THEY seen a political plan out the next 2000 years? They say they won if they get by tomorrow. That was the stupidest argument on this thread, how NOT changing policies is a good thing.
Great OP on this thread.
I would sell my CIV V in a heartbeat.
I can't stand it. It is not fun. It is not deep. My brother just got beyond the sword. We used to play warlords.
Now it is max 4.
Can I uninstall from Steam to sell this dog?
I just think the defends rely on you hate change. I KNOW that is NOT it. I mean when something isn't fun, no AI it's over.
I have not looked at this site in about a week to see what would happen. I think the sentiment is getting worse, big time.
Someone early on posted there is no re-playability. As we play more, folks are figuring out why.
I struggle to win on Immortal in 4. 5 is a joke.
Panzer General and CIV do NOT mix.
As I posted, this was an attempt to make 5 a wargame.
Look at the detail in the unit promotions. That isn't civ. 10's of them. You can see where the energy went.
5 is just not fun and it's not flexible.
Can't tax? No policy changes really. Are you serious. Someone posted what is wrong with that. have THEY seen a political plan out the next 2000 years? They say they won if they get by tomorrow. That was the stupidest argument on this thread, how NOT changing policies is a good thing.
Great OP on this thread.
Thats OK, there is no Democracy without "opposite" category
Well, one of reason I opened new account (other is I forgot what password I used first time, so I was only reading past few years
) is to say whats my opinion, but last time I checked, freedom of speech was under basic human rights so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to do that, or why would anyone be annoyed with fact that my opinion about Civ V isn't same as their, specially after I stated several time that game isn't that bad, and that it's mine opinion only and not everyone feels that way..Trust me, I would be much happier if I like game, I want to like it. Desperately. I grow up with Sid Meiers games, and he never disappointed me. Until now.
And I didn't wrote it to annoy people, only to state my mind. Which may, or may not affect others. I do respect others views, and by all means play game and spread the word if you like it. Its your right.
About uncivilized people, well.. They will always exist.. I actually do understand their anger (I for example am not angry, just disappointed), even though I don't approve that kind of attitude. After all they paid 50€ for something that they don't like, so its wasted money for them.
Registered just to comment.
I've played every civ and expansion except Call to Power 2 and Civ Rev and this is hands down my favorite iteration already even without expansions to fill out features. There are obviously some bugs I've experienced but they are manageable and will be patched in time as happened with Civ4.
They ditched religions and corps which I felt were tacked on features that rarely affected my central strategies. They also abandoned espionage which I havent used since it became ridiculously expensive to attempt with few benefits after Civ2. In return we get flexible social policies and organic border expansion which makes culture as important as science, city states which make taxes useful for much more than upgrades and science like in 4, and happiness induced golden ages and empire based happiness which make happiness a 3rd important factor in all cities and allows a flexible approach to how you expand your civ (vertically or horizontally). Taxes get pulled out to help with just about anything. I entered my first game expecting to pursue my normal science at all costs then goon rush with +1 tech level units midgame strategy and ended up leaning heavily on city states to explode my population and culture. Libraries took a back seat to culture buildings and farms were abandoned to trading posts to press my advantage. It was the first time ever in a civ circumstances had completely changed my intended strategy not simply modified it. Not only that every turn there is at least one decision where there are several demands on the same resource. Do I keep that city state as an ally or purchase that tile with horses Germany is about to snag from me. Do I take the time to build that library or rock the market to boost my coffers and use the patronage social tree to boost science through my city states. I loved it.
In addition, the 1UPT makes combat amazing and the well thought out bonuses for each civ (which generally make them excel in a certain arena) is fantastic. As a whole they seem very well balanced for a 1.0 release as well. Some UUs kind of suck compared to others but if you look at their UA it is generally killer (Russia has cavalry with bonus against weakened units seems underpowered for a UU but their UA which doubles key strategic resources is pretty amazing while England's UA only gives a bonus to naval movement which is nice but slightly more limited depending on the map but in return they get a mid game UU with 3 range). For the first time I find myself wanting to play with more than one civ to experiment with their preferred play style. I'm incredibly pleased with this version and think it will be absolutely amazing when the bugs are patched and the expansions are released.
I've played every civ and expansion except Call to Power 2 and Civ Rev and this is hands down my favorite iteration already even without expansions to fill out features. There are obviously some bugs I've experienced but they are manageable and will be patched in time as happened with Civ4.
They ditched religions and corps which I felt were tacked on features that rarely affected my central strategies. They also abandoned espionage which I havent used since it became ridiculously expensive to attempt with few benefits after Civ2. In return we get flexible social policies and organic border expansion which makes culture as important as science, city states which make taxes useful for much more than upgrades and science like in 4, and happiness induced golden ages and empire based happiness which make happiness a 3rd important factor in all cities and allows a flexible approach to how you expand your civ (vertically or horizontally). Taxes get pulled out to help with just about anything. I entered my first game expecting to pursue my normal science at all costs then goon rush with +1 tech level units midgame strategy and ended up leaning heavily on city states to explode my population and culture. Libraries took a back seat to culture buildings and farms were abandoned to trading posts to press my advantage. It was the first time ever in a civ circumstances had completely changed my intended strategy not simply modified it. Not only that every turn there is at least one decision where there are several demands on the same resource. Do I keep that city state as an ally or purchase that tile with horses Germany is about to snag from me. Do I take the time to build that library or rock the market to boost my coffers and use the patronage social tree to boost science through my city states. I loved it.
In addition, the 1UPT makes combat amazing and the well thought out bonuses for each civ (which generally make them excel in a certain arena) is fantastic. As a whole they seem very well balanced for a 1.0 release as well. Some UUs kind of suck compared to others but if you look at their UA it is generally killer (Russia has cavalry with bonus against weakened units seems underpowered for a UU but their UA which doubles key strategic resources is pretty amazing while England's UA only gives a bonus to naval movement which is nice but slightly more limited depending on the map but in return they get a mid game UU with 3 range). For the first time I find myself wanting to play with more than one civ to experiment with their preferred play style. I'm incredibly pleased with this version and think it will be absolutely amazing when the bugs are patched and the expansions are released.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
