Biggest problem this game still faces

[cinattra]

I have an idea with the combat of ranged units at least when they are attacking. Ranged archery units could do less damage when they are a 2 hexes or more away. The reasoning is that aiming at an individual enemy unit becomes harder the farther you are away decreasing accuracy. They would in effect be aiming at an area and not an individual. One hex away could be normal damage.

Siege units on the other hand don't need the change because in addition to being siege weapons they are also area-effect weapons.

 

[cinattra]

Anyone feel that food is overpowered and that science should not be a function of population size?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

I think you are right about the science not necessarily being a function of population, but at the same time it is. The science buildings specifically public schools and universities should probably cost more gold maintenance and that maintenance could be tied to a city's population. After all the more people that attend a public school or university the more they cost to run. Whereas the library, research lab and observatories costs should not be tied to population.

 

[Quineloe]

dumb AI and science > all bias in my book as well. If Pikemen were moved to metal casting, science focused civs wouldn't have a very powerful, cheap unit in medieval era that can stand up to most armies until riflemen show up.

Ranged units definitely is also an issue, but that one would easily be fixed by reducing the strength of ranged units so melee units would inflict a lot more damage to them per hit.

As for the tall empire thing. I don't understand why the cost goes up on national wonders. It's not like these buildings provide a benefit across the entire empire, most of them only boost the city they're in except Circus Maximus.

 

[Darviathar]

What is the generally accepted definition of "going wide"? Every new game that I start, I go into thinking "Yeah, this will be the one where I finally start with liberty (not tradition) and go beyond 4 cities. Definitely this one". And then I invariably end up starting over, choosing tradition after realizing that I'm still not going to get beyond 4 cities for a while, and feel like I'm behind the curve. I play only on large or huge maps, and still find that the limitation on happiness precludes filling up the map. (I play on King level; I realize its relatively low, but my scores on Emperor are consistently lower than King, and I have less fun playing). Even when I intend to play an early conqueror, I find that at least two points in tradition (starter + legalism) is a better bet than straight down the Honor path.

The other issue I'd say is a problem is indeed the boring end-game. Quite frankly, I miss the old Spaceship aspect. In the earlier civs, you could build a crappy spaceship and rush it to launch, but your score would be lower. Conversely, you could fully develop yours (obviously taking more time), but run the risk of the Indians beating you to Alpha Centauri with their cheap one. I miss Corporations as well. Gave me something to really work on, and a reason to trade for everyone's left over resources (such as Iron).

 

[GhostSalsa]

Get rid of ZOC, or at least nerf it to a movement penalty like GW. Why does that enemy unit magically slow me down anyway? I guess the argument is that it prevents unrealistic penetration behind enemy lines, and forces engagement. But going behind lines is always going to be a risky if not suicidal strategy anyway. Kill ZOC and you fix archers>>>>>everything. Forces the player to use a line of pikes rather than a single pike to protect archers from knights. Much more realistic.

Well, or just make the whole calvary line starting from horsemen or knight ignore ZOC, though that still would feel like too little too late for horses in combat

 

[Zaimejs]

I never thought of the disconnect between science and population. It doesn't really make a lot of sense that the bigger a country is the more science it has.... but what else could you tie it to so that there would be growth?

I don't really notice the ZOC issue. I can't say that it's ever bothered me, but when I play my next game, I'm going to see how it affects my play.

I really like the idea of archers losing power based on distance to target. That just makes sense.

As far as the end game goes... the whole resources thing is a drag. Iron and Horses become a glut instead of an asset. Maybe they should add "rare earth metals" to the late game... or something.

 

[Teproc]

I think ZOC is awesome actually, and part of what makes combat in Civ V so tactical and enjoyable. The horse line already has bonuses against ZOC, they're called movement points. Seriously, that's the whole point of them. I think there are a lot of better ways to fix the ranged problem (penalty against cities for example).

 

[Quineloe]

4 movement points isn't enough to flank a melee unit that is blocking a range unit from your attack, even on ideal terrain.

 

[Sonereal]

4 movement points isn't enough to flank a melee unit that is blocking a range unit from your attack, even on ideal terrain.

It is if you're doing it right and actually flanking.

 

[truenarnian]

Heh. Looking at this thread just reminds me of how fantastic Europa Universalis IV is, and how much V could (and should) learn from it. Firaxis' creation is a kid's game, really, not a game for adults. I hope this changes with VI because even those players who are really kids would enjoy a grownup game more.

Voted warmonger penalty just because I hate it so much, but it could have been any of the other excellent poll options. Nice thread OP.

I stumbled upon EUIV when I visited MadJinn's channel on Youtube looking for a new civ video. I haven't played it yet, but color me impressed at the plethora of options available to leaders.

I'm not saying EUIV is balanced (I haven't played; I wouldn't know), but, yeah, Civ kind of feels like a kids game next to EUIV. The policy trees are a good idea, but I would like more trees, more policies, and more integration of multiple trees. And, as so many point out, only one tree (Tradition) is really worth pursuing.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

I stumbled upon EUIV when I visited MadJinn's channel on Youtube looking for a new civ video. I haven't played it yet, but color me impressed at the plethora of options available to leaders.

I'm not saying EUIV is balanced (I haven't played; I wouldn't know), but, yeah, Civ kind of feels like a kids game next to EUIV. The policy trees are a good idea, but I would like more trees, more policies, and more integration of multiple trees. And, as so many point out, only one tree (Tradition) is really worth pursuing.

Can someone explain how Civ 5 feels like a kids game (besides that it's more unrealistic) compared to EUIV? State criteria for a kids game and an adult game.

Tradition is something to finish early, because it mostly affect your capital. The later SPs affect your whole civ. It's at least worth it to open every policy to get the wonders. And liberty, honor, and aesthetics are well worth finishing.

 

[Sonereal]

Can someone explain how Civ 5 feels like a kids game (besides that it's more unrealistic) compared to EUIV? State criteria for a kids game and an adult game.

Clearly more complex=more adult. That is why EUIV is practically a game for babies compared to real games like Victoria 2 and Crusader Kings II.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Aside from the problems already reported here,I've never liked the concept that few civilizations doesn't get advantages to victories other than Domination victory . Those civilizations are:

- America;
- Denmark;
- Ottomans;

These ones did more during than warring and conquesting during their existance . Fortunately,such issue is getting resolved already .

 

[Quineloe]

It is if you're doing it right and actually flanking.

Actually no. If the unit is directly between you and the unit you want to attack, 4 movement points will not get you there. Sorry for your math.

 

[Sonereal]

Actually no. If the unit is directly between you and the unit you want to attack, 4 movement points will not get you there. Sorry for your math.

If the unit is directly between you and your unit, you clearly failed at flanking already.

Nothing you've said has indicated a problem with flanking itself and all points to you being unable to properly flank armies. If there's a unit directly between you and the unit you want to attack, the unit you're trying to move isn't your flank. It is your center. Try flanking with your flanks and stop putting mounted in your center and you'll do better.

 

[mjjepper]

If the unit is directly between you and your unit, you clearly failed at flanking already.

Nothing you've said has indicated a problem with flanking itself and all points to you being unable to properly flank armies. If there's a unit directly between you and the unit you want to attack, the unit you're trying to move isn't your flank. It is your center. Try flanking with your flanks and stop putting mounted in your center and you'll do better.

Based on terrain this is not always as easy as I and I am sure others in the thread believe it should be. I think a no ZOC against horses would be a fine addition to the game, and I guess that is why we have mods! To each his own.

 

[Vitruvius]

Based on terrain this is not always as easy as I and I am sure others in the thread believe it should be. I think a no ZOC against horses would be a fine addition to the game, and I guess that is why we have mods! To each his own.

There are supposed to be ways to prevent a horse flanking such as putting units around or make use of terrain. You are suggesting something that allows horses to flank at will and that is both not realistic and imbalanced.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[MantaRevan]

Aside from the problems already reported here,I've never liked the concept that few civilizations doesn't get advantages to victories other than Domination victory . Those civilizations are:

- America;
- Denmark;
- Ottomans;

These ones did more during than warring and conquesting during their existance . Fortunately,such issue is getting resolved already .

I don't think this list quite gets the point across, especially since America is falsely on this list- extra sight is actually a legit ability.
My list of pointless military-only civs:

Denmark
Ottomans
Zulus, Assyrians, and Mongols(although these civs are good enough at war that I don't feel like they're that bad)
Germany
Songhai
Iroquois

All in all there are too many civs that can't do anything that isn't war, especially when war isn't the dominant strategy in this game whatsoever.

 

[GhostSalsa]

My list of pointless military-only civs:

Denmark
Ottomans
Zulus, Assyrians, and Mongols(although these civs are good enough at war that I don't feel like they're that bad)
Germany
Songhai
Iroquois

All in all there are too many civs that can't do anything that isn't war, especially when war isn't the dominant strategy in this game whatsoever.

Germany has the Hanse... I would rate them as having better economic bonuses then stupid Rome anyway.

And as for Denmark, getting out of a boat on one side of a continent and into a boat on the other in the same turn is clearly an end in itself, and as such can't possibly be called "pointless."

 

[Rooftrellen]

I don't think this list quite gets the point across, especially since America is falsely on this list- extra sight is actually a legit ability.
My list of pointless military-only civs:

Denmark
Ottomans
Zulus, Assyrians, and Mongols(although these civs are good enough at war that I don't feel like they're that bad)
Germany
Songhai
Iroquois

All in all there are too many civs that can't do anything that isn't war, especially when war isn't the dominant strategy in this game whatsoever.

Ottomans are crazy good at diplo. Get gunboat diplomacy, sit your nearly free ships in the area of CS's (which are so often coastal that this is almost abusive), rake in the votes.

Denmark can explore other landmasses faster than anyone else due to increased embark speed to actually get units there faster. They can found the World Congress more easily than most because of that, on continents, and that can help with almost any VC.

Germany gets a production bonus with it's bank. That can be put into units. It can be put into museums, too. It can be put into science buildings and spaceship parts...

Songhai can get a pretty insane early gold advantage to use as they want. They can also produce more culture, which is almost as versatile as gold.

The Iroquois have a UA that benefits gold generation, a UB that can benefit production (though it normally doesn't, but also don't affect military production more), and a UU that actually works best for defense in their own lands, rather than attacking others.

I WILL say that the fact that every civ has a UU is a bit...strange in some cases, and that shows a more warlike side to every civ no matter what. No civ has two UU's or a UU and UI. A UU is somehow a requirement, which slants things a bit more toward war, perhaps.