Biggest problem this game still faces

[Teproc]

I voted for Tall Empire Bias. The Sciences >>> everything else is just a part of Civ to me. I've played all the civ games, albeit Civ V is the first one I played on high difficulties (well, Civ I as well), and the game was always first and foremost about science to me. Were the previous game that much less science driven ?

And well, I like tall empires ok, but wide empires are more fun imo, seeing your color spread out on the map like that. They are made very difficult in BNW (and in Civ V in general), and this needs to change.

 

[Bonci]

I was tempted to vote "Tall Empire Bias" but then I rooted for "Unsupported Multiplayer".

Firaxis y u no multiplayer mods?

 

[Ninakoru]

I voted the warmonger penalty. Current patch makes war too restrictive, something horrible on a game that is supposed to be a simulation/militar strategy hybrid.

Looking on a broader perspective the major problem is "Science>>>>Everything Else". It's so core the the gameplay it should be maybe treated differently, and science growth being exponential and all science related boosts being either bigger than other resource versions or exponential, make things much worse.

 

[Sonereal]

Science being more important than everything else isn't a game unique to this part of the series. When you have a linear tech tree that promises you promising units, you would be remiss if you didn't tech up to rifles when you can.

I voted Dumb AI. I feel that if the AI was more competent at...everything it would be a better game overall. The warmonger penalty, for example, only exists because the AI was usually too incompetent to do a proper risk assessment.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I went with Other.

I think tall and wide are more balanced than people think. In fact I go wider now than I did in G&K since I can use internal trade routes to grow a new city to a respectable size fast. I like ICSing after adopting the Resettlement and Iron Curtain tenants. In G&K the game always hit a point where founding a new city was pointless because it'd never grow big enough to be useful.

What aren't balanced are the policy trees. Tradition and Rationalism get adopted in 9 out of 10 games anymore. Tradition's long term economic and growth impact just makes it superior to other trees. Rationalism's power is just derived from the power of science in the game (a part of the Civ series that I've just come to accept) and tbh I think the game might actually benefit from it just being dumped altogether.

The other thing that needs attention is the unit balance. Units (most specifically strategic units) were actually more interesting and balanced in vanilla. Having strategic resources was important. It made seeking them out and settling them something you had to do (something that would make turtling up in a small empire a little less attractive for those who find "wide" to be pointless). Too much complaining about the OPness of mounted and iron units in the early game have turned both into pretty inconsequential units. Pikes getting buffed and comp bows being added made swords unnecessary and mounted units have been nerfed into oblivion. Now not having horses is no big deal unless you want to use them for a UU and not having iron isn't a problem at all until you hit navigation.

I liked how in Vanilla I would start out with a strong army of swords and catapults that could dominate. Then I ran into a civ that had a lot of horses and built a bunch of knights that were ripping up my swords. It would force me to build pikes to counter them. What I'm saying is I'd really like each unit to be strong vs. a specific type and weak vs. another. It's a core part of most strategy games that I think they started in Vanilla but got lost somewhere along the way. Mounted should be strong vs. infantry and ranged but weak vs. anti-mounted. Infantry strong against ranged and anti-mounted but weak vs. mounted. Ranged weak on defense but strong on offense (requiring them to have melee protection). And so on, etc. I want to be encouraged to have variety in my army composition rather than just the "coupla melee and a buncha ranged" set up that wins out in so many games. I think it's a shame that the devs put effort into trying to make the AI flavors build a variety units but took away the need for a variety at the same time. Russia used to be top tier but now that strategics aren't as important they are barely mid tier.

 

[Zaimejs]

After reading more replies, I thought of the Problem of Science. The problem is that the Tech Tree is basically in charge of everything else. Your technology changes the era which leads to benefits. Your technology unlocks wonders. If technology were more focused on just technology, then I think science would be more balanced. If wonders would unlock NOT when both the culture and tech were gained but just the culture, that would be nice.

I think that there just needs to be a rebalance between religion/science/and culture so that science isn't so much more powerful than the others.

But then again, maybe science is just that important in the real world, so the game keeps a bit of realism in there...

Great discussion! I hope Firaxis pays attention.

 

[cpm4001]

Though "Bad AI", "Tall Bias", and "Unsupported Multiplayer" are all areas of major concern to me, I feel Diplomacy is the area that Civ V most suffers. My dream game is the Civ V game engine with all the diplomacy stuff from EU IV patched in, but even just some of the better features from Paradox games (Casus Belli, e.g.) would make the game much more interesting. In addition, better diplomatic features might help to fix other problem areas too; for example, reducing the warmonger penalty for capturing enemy cities in defensive wars or even in offensive wars with a well-implemented CB system would help to resolve that issue.
I would also seriously love to see a big-time ranged units nerf, though.

 

[Ravellion]

How about "ranged units>>>>>>everything else"? I'm surprised this has not been included or mentioned yet. When is the last time you thought "If only I could get some iron/horses to build longswordmen/knights and kick my neighbour's behind"? Instead, it is mostly:
Defensive: A few cbows/xbows, 1 spear/pike
Offensive: A few _more_ cbows/xbows, 1 spear/pike
Besides pretty much obsoleting half the units _and_ techs(Lately beelined iron working and steel anyone?), this also makes the so-called "strategic ressources" not like anything their name implies - besides needing iron for frigates, of course.

I voted for "Dumb AI" but this takes the real cake. I started a thread about this a few days ago. Of course, the AI problem is related. The AI an't handle ranged units as well as melee units. Firaxis can strike two birds with one stone here.

 

[Peng Qi]

You forgot "bad unit balance after Renaissance."

 

[Vitruvius]

Tall Empire Bias: I don't find it too much of a problem. I go relatively wide every game. It really depend on map size. I think the standard map size with 8 civs is a little crammed for wide, but anything bigger than that, its actually better to go wide, and go wide fast.

Boring/Predictable Endgame: It does get boring but I couldn't think of any good ways to solve it. Part of it is due to AI, as they have no idea how to challenge you in your victory conditions. Making endgame interesting might prolong the game even further.

Warmonger Penalty: There's a lot of talk about it but I see it to be just fine.

Diplomacy: Its fine. Although I would like to see more intelligence on the AI side. Instead of just "I hate you so I will attack you", it should be more "you are going to win, so we should unite against you".

Dumb AI: AI is always going to be dumb one way or another. Its how you design and balance other aspects of game so that AI has less chance of making errors and humans less things to exploit.

Long Turn Times: I am sure getting a better computer will make it shorter. Definitely not something that compromises my Civ experience.

Too Easy: You are playing it too much.

Too Hard: You are not playing it enough.

Science>>>>Everything Eles: My vote. Science is important, but the main problem is the headstart AI gets on the higher difficulties forces you to prioritise science, making the first 2/3 of the game very one dimensional.

Unsupported Multiplayer: Turn based game is hard for MP.

 

[Crafty Bison]

How about "ranged units>>>>>>everything else"? I'm surprised this has not been included or mentioned yet. When is the last time you thought "If only I could get some iron/horses to build longswordmen/knights and kick my neighbour's behind"? Instead, it is mostly:
Defensive: A few cbows/xbows, 1 spear/pike
Offensive: A few _more_ cbows/xbows, 1 spear/pike
Besides pretty much obsoleting half the units _and_ techs(Lately beelined iron working and steel anyone?), this also makes the so-called "strategic ressources" not like anything their name implies - besides needing iron for frigates, of course.

Ya I voted 'other' cause of this, and now find that others feel the same way about ranged being OP.

 

[MantaRevan]

It isn't possible to add more poll options, right?

 

[AW Arcaeca]

I would say "too hard", just because I'm not good at the game, but instead I voted "tall empire bias". I like to have a big, sprawling empire but the unhappiness penalties don't make that possible. (Maybe that's why I'm not good?)

 

[otaman1]

Another problem here.

It seems like the barbarians only go for the human player, not the AI. I had a fully healed scout who stumbled upon a roaming barbarian near Shaka's border. Shaka's worker was working on a horse, just two tiles away from the barbarian. Arabia had an injured (red bar) scout and Persia had a medium health (yellow bar) warrior. When it was the barbarian's turn, they didn't walk the two flat tiles north to kidnap a worker, they didn't go down south two tiles to kill the Arabian scout nor hurt the Persian warrior more. Instead, they went for my scout, who were in a jungle. Arabia's scout and Persia's warrior were on grassland and yet the barbarian didn't attack them. And all of a sudden, 3 barbarians out of no where killed my scout and spared the AI's units? I mean, what the hell!?!?!?!

Did Firaxis code the barbarians so they would attack the human player if they're near by?

 

[PrimoXanthous]

1 minute per turn is the worst, i rather have a dumb AI .

 

[Arms Longfellow]

I believe Civ 5 BNW to be superior to Civ 4 in most ways, except for one important area: City specialization. I loved this in Civ 4 and miss it a lot. It was fun to scout out a location and say, "Yeah, this looks like a perfect place for a production city" proceed to set up as many farms as you needed to work every production tile, build only the production multiplier buildings you needed, and set it to Build Wealth if nothing else was needed at the time. You wanted to also check out sites for Super Great Person City, Super Science City, Super Gold City, Military Headquarters, and build their respective national wonders. Each one of your cities played an important role in your empire. Nowadays in Civ 5, you just stack all the national wonders in your capital, scout out a location and say, "This looks like a perfect place for a ... city" then proceed to make it an inferior copy of your capital. Always farm river tiles. It's boring. Civ 4 had more flexibility with city building in general, with special strategies like Specialist Economy and Cottage Economy.

 

[redwings1340]

I would vote for tall empire bias, but I voted other because I think the real problem is social policy imbalance. Even with the consulates nerf, tradition and rationalism are just better than everything, regardless of your empire. I don't just want to make wide viable, I want to make conquest/honor viable, piety to become better at establishing religions (right now in my opinion tradition is better than piety for empires with faith natural wonders, which I think is ridiculous). Exploration and commerce both have useless policies in them, which hurts the trees quite a bit.

Basically, social policies should fit the situation you're in. Even if tall is better overall, I want liberty to work better than tradition with wide empires, and honor to work better than tradition with warmongers.

 

[MantaRevan]

Did Firaxis code the barbarians so they would attack the human player if they're near by?

That's a good question. Maybe someone with more experience with the code can answer that. I'd certainly be interested in knowing.

 

[Vitruvius]

That's a good question. Maybe someone with more experience with the code can answer that. I'd certainly be interested in knowing.

Its weird. I have seen AI getting attacked by barbs when I am in range. I always thought they prioritise humans because AIs get more combat bonus on barbs than humans, but I don't know why they would also prefer to steal human workers than AI workers.

 

[Doctor Doom]

I do agree with science>>>>> everything. Its pretty much the base for every VC, what I would like to see is a religious victory type. Win by having a certain number of other civ's cities as your religion, that would make piety a lot more viable and would help with the science problem. just my two cents.