CIV 5, 10 months after release

[Sven Anka]

Being a Civilization addict, growing up with civ 1-4 and having so many hours of fun with it I bought civ 5 at release.

I don't mean to rant about details but I was disappointed back then, I could not get my old civ feeling from it "Just one more turn".
I also remember the criticism or should I say rage on civfanatics the upcoming time after release.

I'm considering to give it another go.

So I'd like to ask how you feel about the game today.
Can old civ 4 addicts appreciate civ 5?
A brief sum up about what's going on would be awesome.

Me and my friends used to play civ 4 multi player marathon games for days and I really miss it.

Cheers
//Sven Anka

 

[Mozzington]

I find it okay now. I do enjoy it when I play but there is far less to do.

I still play 4 more often than not and if given the choice of having to decide it would be 4 every time.

However, it does improve with every patch and if you just play it for what it is and stop thinking about how good 4 is then you should enjoy.

 

[PSPSoldier534]

It is getting much better, especially with all the new DLC's coming out (those Steam sales are amazing. Got most of them for less than $10 USD.) To me, it seems like they just stripped most of the "clutter" from previous civ games and are slowly going to re-add some of the content through DLC's, patches, and expansions (if those still exist.)

 

[Brichals]

I find it very immersive. better than Civ4 for me but I was most addicted to Civ3. But the patches are excellent and people are starting to appreciate the DLC model as not necessarily evil. It's extremely popular on Steam now (from player figures) and is keeping that player base.

I think it's great now but even more i would get back into it as it will improve I think.

 

[bitula]

Ive also had this huge dissapointment, and now just wait what happens. Ahh, yeah and ten months passed since...? Maybe Im wrong, but as I read the forums, it seems nothing happened. As far as I understand DLCs and patches did not change anything regarding game mechanics, just tweak this-and-that and add lots of new art, animations, maps and whatever, nothing else. These are quite static stuff. Nothing added to the gameplay. But maybe I am wrong so please feel free to correct me. If I get some positive feadback, I also plan to try it again. But I am quite disappointed, though I didnt give up, I rather start to feel now that civ5 is a deadend. Did they at least release the core dll C++ code? Because an other option is that the community may save this game with the source available, since at least it was promised that the game is even more customizable ("tweak-able") than civ4.

 

[Strategist83]

It's impossible for anybody to tell you whether you'll like it now since you didn't specify why you didn't like it the first time. There has been many changes to the game - and it still has tremendous problems.

 

[bitula]

It's impossible for anybody to tell you whether you'll like it now since you didn't specify why you didn't like it the first time. There has been many changes to the game - and it still has tremendous problems.

Same reason, as the OP. Had not had the feeling of "just one more turn". Boring, due to lack of gameplay content, badly thought out mechanics, "streamline" versus strategy, too much tactics, few city building aspects, etc. And I believe nothing changed so far just bunch of animations and flavour stuff added. Althogh, maybe Im wrong. So feel free to correct.

 

[Strategist83]

Same response. You're not specifying what the problem is but using vague terms like 'lack of one more turn feeling' or 'lack of content'. That's not very informative and the only way you'll be able to tell whether it's better now is to play.

 

[jahsoldier]

Combat AI is still bad, but the computer-controlled civs at least build a full range of units now, including navies and air units (I remember when the AI didn't even know how to make horsies ). Diplomacy is somewhat better, it gives you the reasons why leaders like or hate you, but it's nowhere near the previous games, you will still get randomly denounced/DoW'd by long-standing friends for absolutely no reason other than the schizophrenic AI.

Social policies have had a bit of an overhaul, but aside from that not much has changed mechanically. Overall, it's certainly better than it was and I'm still having quite a bit of fun with it. I'd say use mods (Thal's Balance Mod and City State Diplomacy are a must IMO) if you're finding it boring, they improve the game so much.

 

[bitula]

Same response. You're not specifying what the problem is but using vague terms like 'lack of one more turn feeling' or 'lack of content'. That's not very informative and the only way you'll be able to tell whether it's better now is to play.

It is not possible to explain this in few sentences, there were a huge quantity of posts and threads expaining why civ5 is boring 10 months ago, I agree with almost all those statements, oppinions, and dont want to restart the issue... But as I read this thread, I just feel that for those who really disliked civ5 at the beginning there is no reason to even make a try, since practiacally nothing has happened since then. What has happened is
1) Bugfix
2) Balance tweaks
3) Adding maps
4) Adding pictures, videos and animation.
If these are the only things that changed during 10 months, then only those will enjoy the game who had (at least somewhat) enjoyed it at the beginning as well. IMO.

 

[Jimbo30]

It's actually MUCH better now. Before yesterday I'd never got past about 1500 AD in any game but I finally got to near the end in one. The balance tweaks make the social policies and units a lot more fun so you don't feel like you need to play the same game every time. Diplomacy is better if not wonderful, imo the game is vastly improved on the mess it was at release.

I'm still a bit annoyed at the DLC though, aint paying for that crap when it should be in the game to start. Also the most important flaw - which was the total capitulation of the AI when you got ahead of them in a war - has mostly been fixed.

 

[Edgecrusher]

I believe I feel the same way as the OP.

I just dont get that "one more turn feeling", I was used to having with 2, 3 and 4.

I remember playing previous installments of the series, not being able to wait to see if my war strategy would develop the way I envisioned it. With 5, it almost seems too tedious to the point, I find myself bored, because ounce the infrastructure is in place,
there isn't much to do outside of pumping out a clunky "wave of death".

I do think the game is challanging and can be fun, on a different level than previous installments. It definitly does have a Panzer General/Axis & Allies type feel to it, and less of an empire building game.

 

[spider1]

So I'd like to ask how you feel about the game today.
Can old civ 4 addicts appreciate civ 5?

I am an old Civ 4 addict (and the entire series since it first came out) and without a doubt I believe Civ V is a major upgrade of the series that still has some problems to be worked out. As to if you might enjoy it today if you didn't when it first came out depends on the reason you didn't like it. Since it's release there have been a lot of very good balance changes and some fixes, but the game remains essentially the same as when it was released. The DLCs have added some excellent and fun new civs. There are a lot of things that folks complain about in this forum, most of which don't affect my play style with this game. For myself, my only real complaint about the game is the deplomacy system which was bad on release and is still just as bad, but it doesn't keep me from playing the game as I've learned to adjust to it, but it's still a sucky deplomacy system.

My own opinion is Civ V is more fun to play than 4, but I've had that opinion since day one of it's release. I'm not a former V hater that somehow turned around and likes it now. There are tons of mods to download that change the game in many ways, and there are about a half dozen or so civs that are very fun to play with, the rest ..... meh.

I hope that helps in some way.

 

[Sven Anka]

Apologies that my first post lacked details about what I liked and did not like with civ 5.
Bare in mind that I only tried it a few times right after release, so I never really leaned the game well and might remember completely wrong about something.

I had so high expectations about the game, probably why I got disappointed and stopped playing.

I can start out with what I like about civ 5.
* No unit stacking

* Hexagons



What I don't like about civ 5.
* I miss the old civ 4 specialist economy.

* Civics used to be fun "what civic serves my civilization best right now" options to play around with while it also had impact on diplomacy. Choosing civics that can't be changed fells boring and even unrealistic.

* The game felt a bit dumbed down to attract more ppl to play it (alot of ppl didn't like civ 4 because it was "too complicated").

* Multi player didn't work at all, it took forever for next turn to load and was very laggy.

* The AI was very poor, almost ********.

* Unhappiness was very hard to deal with early game unless you had the right resources, witch made the starting location very important.

* Maintenance was a huge issue since roads, building and units was expensive. I got the impression that I really couldn't work out a wide spectrum of tactics. Whatever I tried in different games it all ended up pretty much the same, but with a little tweak. In civ 4 you could go do a wide spectrum of tactics specialist cities, wonder rushing to get huge benefits, warmongering, rushing to get a lot of cities before your enemies, cottage spamming to tech like hell or eve go with a spy specialisation.


I hope this adds a bit more content to my original post.

EDIT: I also didn't like the City States...

EDIT2: I also miss city health and I don't like that you have civilization happiness instead of city. I want to micro all my cities.

 

[Brichals]

These are just my opinions. Some of your concerns have been addressed in patches I think.

* I miss the old civ 4 specialist economy.
You can run much more powerful SEs in this one if you choose the right policies and wonders. Citizen management in general is better and more complex imo.

* Civics used to be fun "what civic serves my civilization best right now" options to play around with while it also had impact on diplomacy. Choosing civics that can't be changed fells boring and even unrealistic.
Policies are excellent after patches.

* The game felt a bit dumbed down to attract more ppl to play it (alot of ppl didn't like civ 4 because it was "too complicated").
That's a matter of opinion. I didn't like Civ4 because of all the cartoony fluff.

* Multi player didn't work at all, it took forever for next turn to load and was very laggy.
Never played it but seems so.

* The AI was very poor, almost ********.
Tactical AI is still poor. I think the diplomacy is good but more humanlike than in Civ4. It tries to win. I like it to be honest, and I think I understand it.

* Unhappiness was very hard to deal with early game unless you had the right resources, witch made the starting location very important.
It can be a bit slow early on but there are various strategies around this. I often have to use the avoid growth button in smaller cities. Global happiness means you really have to calculate where you want growth to occur. Macromanagement is more complex and satisfying than in Civ4, where you could basically aim to max each individual city.

* Maintenance was a huge issue since roads, building and units was expensive. I got the impression that I really couldn't work out a wide spectrum of tactics. Whatever I tried in different games it all ended up pretty much the same, but with a little tweak. In civ 4 you could go do a wide spectrum of tactics specialist cities, wonder rushing to get huge benefits, warmongering, rushing to get a lot of cities before your enemies, cottage spamming to tech like hell or eve go with a spy specialisation.
I think the patches allowed more strategies to be viable whilst removing some of the overpowered ones. Civ4 had plenty of exploits aswell.

 

[spider1]

Well, I have to be honest, with that list of dislikes I don't think you'll like the game upon retrying even with all the patches and new DLC content. However, as has been pointed out many times, the difference between vanilla 4 and BTS is huge. V is not yet as improved or enhanced as BTS is compaired to vanilla 4. The developers do seem to pay attention to the complaints and have either fixed some of them or have attempted to fix. They even have taken a few shots at fixing deplomacy, but it's still a train wreck.

And if you don't like city states, you can turn them off. As to city health, V is fundamentally different in that it uses global happiness and culture. That is something I don't see changing and I prefer it anyway. As to micromanaging your cities, you can still do that, it's the way I play the game. There is not as much micromanaging to do, but you can still manage your cities in such a way as to make each city a specialist city and IMO it's just as good, if not better in this respect, to civ 4.

 

[Ranos]

Hated Civ 5 after it came out. I liked a lot of the changes made but there were just too many issues. I quit playing for a few months and found that after the third patch, it was a lot more playable. Now we're up to the fourth patch, if I'm counting correctly, and it is fairly decent.

Unfortunately, the AI is pretty bad, especially at warfare. I could never get very high in difficulty in previous games because I just couldn't adapt very well due to my play style. In Civ 5, I'm already a couple of levels above where I was in 4 and am going to be going up another level in my next game.

I don't play MP for multiple reasons but if you used to play with a few friends, this would be the way to go.

 

[trueblue]

this thread is exactly what this board needs...........

 

[chazzycat]

i have been fully addicted to both in the last few years. I will say though, that I haven't played a single game of civ4 since 5 came out...

If you haven't played since release, you have missed a lot. Several patches have made big changes in the game, added resources, buildings, etc. A few of the policy branches have gone through complete overhauls. Most of these changes have been positively received. For instance they have decreased most early build times, and decreased the culture cost per city for new policies. They have also made a lot of wonders more powerful.

I remember when the game first came out it was a bit hard to get into it. It was weak from the builder side - everything took too long to build, the buildings and wonders barely seemed worth building anyway, and any expansion made it really tough to get more policies. The changes they've made in the patches have done a pretty good job improving these aspects IMO.

 

[bitula]

If you haven't played since release, you have missed a lot. Several patches have made big changes in the game, added resources, buildings, etc.

I wonder how many resources/building were added... Hmmm, 2 or 3...? Do I need to buy the DLC-s to see them, or they are in the patch. If there is a substential amount of new buildings, that would be a good news. So?