Biggest problem this game still faces

[GhostSalsa]

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.

The problem can be approached from either direction, really. To say the reason Tradition is better than Liberty or Honor is not because it's bonuses are more substantive, but because there's insufficient reward for expanding or for conquering before 200. There's only wasted effort. Liberty and Honor successfully help with something you don't "want" to do in the game.

I would look at it this way because I like both trees a lot - they buff the "active" parts of gameplay rather than Tradition's passive benefits - I just feel completely hemmed by the game mechanics before Industrial.

On the other hand you're right on with Commerce and Exploration critiques, though I like being encouraged to leave trees unfinished (more variety) it should be via stronger bonus flavors, not useless policies.

 

[Vitruvius]

The problem can be approached from either direction, really. To say the reason Tradition is better than Liberty or Honor is not because it's bonuses are more substantive, but because there's insufficient reward for expanding or for conquering before 200. There's only wasted effort. Liberty and Honor successfully help with something you don't "want" to do in the game.

I would look at it this way because I like both trees a lot - they buff the "active" parts of gameplay rather than Tradition's passive benefits - I just feel completely hemmed by the game mechanics before Industrial.

On the other hand you're right on with Commerce and Exploration critiques, though I like being encouraged to leave trees unfinished (more variety) it should be via stronger bonus flavors, not useless policies.

And what is the reason for "Insufficient reward for expanding or conquering before 200"?. Science >>>>>> Everything.

 

[Furret]

Gotta go with dumb AI. Many of these problems stem from dumb AI (too easy/hard, diplomacy/boring endgame).

Difficulty issues:
My problem with the way the AI works currently can be summed up with this (crude) graph I made:

Spoiler :

On lower difficulty levels, the computer starts out with no bonuses, and because it isn't very good, improves relatively linearly.
On higher difficulty levels, the computer starts out way ahead of you, and because it isn't very good, improves relatively linearly (albeit faster with production, etc. bonuses).
The player will improve exponentially (assuming they're good), which turns Civ into a game of catch-up. The harder the difficulty, the longer it takes to catch up. This essentially means the game is annoying early because the only opportunities to compete with the AI are abusing their inability to conduct warfare; see dumb AI, competitive in the mid-game, and boring in the late game.

Using myself as an example I pull ahead around the following eras:
Prince: Classical
King: Medieval
Emperor: Renaissance
Immortal: Modern (assuming I survive)
Deity: Never

Technically I could adjust my difficulty depending on what part of the game I want to be interesting, but what if I want the whole game to be interesting? The only way that will be solved is through a smarter AI.

 

[joncnunn]

IMHO, It's still mostly the dumb AI.

1. AI will pay more for a luxury up front than they would under an installment plan. (240 gold up front or 7 gpt [+10 or so if DOF] this is actually worse than G&K; in which you only lost between 1 & 2 gold per GPT and now it's 3 or 4 gold lost per gpt .

2. Flavor driven system: So flexible it does't really work. The AI really needs scripts.

3. The AI default happiness tells you exactly what the AI sucks at most. These are science (this became worse in BNW as AI couldn't handle the new per city science increase costs) and happiness.

4. City placement: AI founds cities to close together; mostly due to no concept that a very good tile currently outside the cultural boundary of an existing city will quickly become one. (Resulting in plopping another city down whose only point was to pick up that same tile) As a side note, increasing the default minimum city spacing by one really helps the AI in this regard.

Along the same lines; design decisions could have been made that would have eliminated a couple of these issues.
Civ IV had a strict AI will never mix gold with GPT; if that had been kept issue #1 would not exist.

Civ V changing national wonders from a flat fixed copy of buildings needed in Civ IV to 100% of current cities in the empire made it much more difficult for the poor AI to actually build national wonders.

The AI has always had problems seeing that it needed to build a happiness structure before the city went into revolt (Civ I - III; IV reduced the AI's handicap by having the city mostly productive and only unable to use that last population point that caused it to go into unhappiness). The global happiness made it worse since the AI doesn't notice it needs to build happiness structures until its already negative.

 

[bbbt]

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 ?

From my memory (and it's been a while since I played the other ones), the other games were a little less science focused in some regards. I.e. the cultural victory in earlier games were actually more about building your cultural buildings early and managing your slider and such, and while getting to a tech earlier for those buildings/wonder was obviously useful, it wasn't as crucial - nor was there the dash to internet et al as a finisher like now.

But the big difference is with units - it was often mocked (ala samurai vs tank), but an experienced unit in earlier civs could actually stand up to (to some degree) to more advanced units. In this iteration, the more advanced units (especially key ones ala frigates, crossbows, artillery) will almost always decimate lower units. This combined with the stacking, meant that in earlier games, building a ton of early units could allow you more warmongering than in the current game, where they get outdated much quicker if you don't keep up in science.

 

[bbbt]

Technically I could adjust my difficulty depending on what part of the game I want to be interesting, but what if I want the whole game to be interesting? The only way that will be solved is through a smarter AI.

Yeah, I agree with this, it seems to be a bit of a balance between more interesting/variable early game but more boring end game (easier levels), or more strict/by the book early game on the higher levels (4 cities, national college, max population emphasis) for a more tense end game.

In lieu of a better AI, it might be interesting they could make a more linearly advantaged AI instead of the major head start (i.e., maybe give the AI one free tech per era instead of a bunch at the beginning, etc.)

 

[Biologist]

Ironically, I think the game's largest flaw in terms of gameplay is how vastly more important science is than almost any other aspect. I understand that research is important and should be important for any play style, but I often feel like for best results I should just play as though I'm going for a science victory.

Domination victory? Yeah, I need to stay ahead of other civs in tech level in order to overcome their defenses. If the AI gets to some key technology first (e.g. Dynamite, Flight), simply swarming them with hordes of units is unlikely to be effective in the long term. Guess I'd better not build that Statue of Zeus while I rush to National College.

Cultural victory? I'll need a few key wonders.... and to get them, I've got to beat the AI to the proper era or I'll miss out. Guess it's time for science!

Diplomatic victory? A world tour is in order, so I'd better get Astronomy ASAP. And of course I want to be first to discover the Printing Press, so I'll need to crank out the science.

Science victory? Science science science science science science science science.... ad infinitum. If I get bored of that, I can just switch to another victory type and win that way rather than launching the spaceship.

The ability to steal techs, science gains from trade routes and religion, and Assyria's UA are all interesting ways of mitigating the need to prioritize research above all else, but I always seem to suffer if I don't work on building the National College from turn one.

 

[truenarnian]

Ironically, I think the game's largest flaw in terms of gameplay is how vastly more important science is than almost any other aspect. I understand that research is important and should be important for any play style, but I often feel like for best results I should just play as thought I'm going for a science victory.

Domination victory? Yeah, I need to stay ahead of other civs in tech level in order to overcome their defenses. If the AI gets to some key technology first (e.g. Dynamite, Flight), simply swarming them with hordes of units is unlikely to be effective in the long term. Guess I'd better not build that Statue of Zeus while I rush to National College.

Cultural victory? I'll need a few key wonders.... and to get them, I've got to beat the AI to the proper era or I'll miss out. Guess it's time for science!

Diplomatic victory? A world tour is in order, so I'd better get Astronomy ASAP. And of course I want to be first to discover the Printing Press, so I'll need to crank out the science.

Science victory? Science science science science science science science science.... ad infinitum. If I get bored of that, I can just switch to another victory type and win that way rather than launching the spaceship.

The ability to steal techs, science gains from trade routes and religion, and Assyria's UA are all interesting ways of mitigating the need to prioritize research above all else, but I always seem to suffer if I don't work on building the National College from turn one.

I thought this post did a good job of presenting the problem within each VC.

So maybe the tree will eventually need to be re=structured (Civ 6!).

Two ways I can think of:
1. Have science buildings/buffs available on each main branch of the tree.

2. Have things outside the tree allow for more science. Maybe:
-- a. Domination VC: Assyria like science bonus when conquering city - not a free tech, but rather a small GS-like bonus when a city is taken. This represents drafting conquered counselors into your braintrust. Also: Honor tree could give science bonus for researching military techs (reduce cost by X%).
-- b. Diplomacy VC (Exploration): Each new land tile revealed gets a one-time +2 Science; each revealed water tile gets +1 Science (with tech costs rebalanced). Patronage has science bonuses from CS's earlier in tree. Each civ passes science back and forth when friendly (or with OpeN Borders).
-- c. Economic: Each new trade route brings science regardless of teach leads (representing improvements, borrowed techniques) - maybe this is a policy in Commerce.
-- d. Religion: Not a VC (yet), but allow monastery like science buildings in the policy tree.

In other words - let science come from all kinds of places, rather than one branch of the tree.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

I voted for "Diplomacy", for two reasons:

1) There really should be more options for interaction. Things like asking their opinions of recent events/leaders, insults/compliments, trading MAPS and techs, asking nicely in addition to demands, and making "unofficial" deals (I won't do A if you don't do B).

2) I wish the AI was just more reasonable to deal with. I've noticed that they're all jerks unless you baby them and park an army near their borders. I mean, it shouldn't be so hard to make good friends.

Happiness is also a big issue. I once cared dearly for Mongolia, but after they chose a different ideology from me, they went into revolt and lost some cities to me from flipping (I even gave those back). I had to give him ALL of my spare luxuries when he wouldn't change from Order (of all ideologies) to save him from his civil war. The AI would rather raze gifted cities than deal with the happiness problems that come with them.

I also really love a previous posters idea of allowing new civs in mid-game as breakaways from bigger civs, and allowing barbs to have cities again.

I would love to see a non-playable CS that had an empire-building flavor (it tries to capture neighboring cities). I guess kind of like a barb civ.

 

[anrke]

I loved the first page suggestions around the precarious nature of very large, wide empires relying on strong culture to prevent splitting. I enjoyed that aspect of whichever version of Civ (3?) it was in. Likewise the possibility of capturing a capital instigating a civil war was always a great way to smash a huge empire.

Diplomacy certainly needs work. It has always been a shambles.

Technology - I would like to see military technologies treated in a different manner to other technologies. For example, aquiring foreign technologies from victories in the battlefield - If your defeating more advanced enemy units, do you not think you would learn a thing or two from the spoils of the war. This can help balance out a game where militaristically empires may be close with their technologies, but you may still have civs whcih are far advanced in their domestic technologies.

 

[Biologist]

Not to wander too far into Ideas and Suggestions territory, but a research bonus for defeating technologically superior units sounds like a cool idea.

 

[Navelgazer]

I voted "Science >>> Everything" but I was torn between that and "Tall Empire Bias." Thankfully I realized they are more or less the same issue. I suppose in it's own way, "Warmonger Penalty" is as well.

The beauty of the game is how interrelated most of its mechanics are, but that's also the problem with its, well, problems. One fix affects everything else.

I'm currently running a King-difficulty Carthage game where I'm going somewhat wide and trying for a Science Victory just to see how doable it is. I've got Messenger of the Gods and I'm rocking Exploration for its sea-production and rationalism for it's science bonuses and we'll see. But if wide only helps with Domination (and obliquely with Diplomatic) and hurts everything else that's an issue. And if science is such a runaway (as I believe it is currently) that production is kind of an end-game afterthought because nobody can catch up, then things are broken. But they are multiple things.

 

[danieladler]

They need to work out a different difficulty system. It seems kinda lazy to just give the AI more starting units, immunity to unhappiness and ridiculous gold bonuses for every increase in difficulty. But perhaps we have come to roads end where its not possible to solve this in another way, even though its 2013 and not 1991.

 

[m_dorian]

The sad state of diplomacy and the fact that the Player does not have the negotiation options AI players have halts my will to purchase the BNW expansion at 30 euros. I might get it at 10 and cross fingers there's a patch fixing some issues like the warmonger penalty i am reading about.

 

[SYKOJAK]

I went other on this one. I would like more spy action, in the form of more things to do dastardly dirty deeds done dirt cheap!

 

[Wulf38]

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

I took a look at the code, and it looks like the answer is no, barbarians don't prioritize human players. There is some randomness when they're deciding whether to attack military units or civilians, which could explain the odd behavior some people have seen.

 

[Rooftrellen]

The importance of science is annoying.

It's not as if the Maya came up with the zero because a lot of smart guys sat down in a circle and said "let's invent something new." Romans didn't create their grand structures as research projects. Culture guides science, but there is no importance of our civ's culture on science (except the rationalism tree, but, trust me, the Romans were mixing concrete WAY before the Renaissance.)

Religion has quite a bit to do with science. People look for answers and discover things. Heck, Europe was passively destroying knowledge from ancient Greece and Rome in order to write religious texts, while the Muslim work was actively saving many of the same texts for religious (educational) purposes. In the game, there are a total of two beliefs that can give science.

War has had a massive impact on science. Again, people didn't sit around and say "hey, let's make iron stronger just because iron is cool" or "you know what, I want to create a bomb from that radioactive stuff because...fireworks!" only to later see the use of that technology in weapons. In the real world, war leads to an insane percentage of research. In the game, science is the primary, war comes as a result.

Science doesn't happen for the sake of science, ever. It happens because pure science is valued culturally (as in ancient Greece), religiously (as in the middle ages), or for practical reasons (such as ancient Rome). In the game, science happens because...science is science and it's how you win.

 

[GhostSalsa]

1. Have science buildings/buffs available on each main branch of the tree.

2. Have things outside the tree allow for more science. Maybe:
-- b. Diplomacy VC (Exploration): Each new land tile revealed gets a one-time +2 Science; each revealed water tile gets +1 Science (with tech costs rebalanced). Patronage has science bonuses from CS's earlier in tree. Each civ passes science back and forth when friendly (or with OpeN Borders).
-- c. Economic: Each new trade route brings science regardless of teach leads (representing improvements, borrowed techniques) - maybe this is a policy in Commerce.

Oh! I just realized what Great Admirals should do to make them finally worth ever getting - bulb to add 2 science to all ocean tiles worked by a city.

It's ludicrous nothing ever adds science to whales or fish even though Ecology shows a diver in the icon. An Exploration policy like "Cousteau's legacy" would be a very tasty tile bonus and add flavor and value to the right side of that tree.

As for Commerce, the science from money buildings isn't bad, though I've only gone down the right side of Commerce before opening Rationalism once...

 

[Teproc]

@Roofreelen : All of this is true obviously. I don't see how you could implement a realistic version of scientific progress though. To me, the tech tree and the resulting focus Civ has on science is simply a necessary evil.

 

[Makavcio]

Civ5 BNW is a huge paradox. Many awesome features were added to the game and at least in theory, nothing was taken away. The problem is, GnK is more fun to me even without ideologies and archeology. There's a balance issue with honor-expansion-science factors that makes BNW an extremely repetitive game. No matter what, you just get your 4 cities and make them grow as high as possible.

Dumb AI is a lingering issue. I just hope it's going to be smarter in Civ6.