CIV 5, 10 months after release

[Roxlimn]

kristenangel:

That's completely wrong. A DoF is contingent on having already good relations with a Civ in Civ5. It just locks that relationship in for a while, and has diplomatic repercussions with that Civ's enemies. Religoin is auto. For leaders like Isabella, you adopt her religion, and she's your , even when she hated your guts just a few turns ago.

You can use Religion in Civ 4 to basically instruct AI to fight other AIs for you, and basically hijack them into being your resources rather than your obstacles.

 

[PSPSoldier534]

FIrst post here. I haven't been lurking in the forums for nearly 8 months, and the Civ V debate still seems to drag on...

As an older player (30+), I've enjoyed the series for the better part of 18 years. Every single CIV so far have been different from the previous. Period. And I've enjoyed every single one of them, including V. Although it took a long while to actually appreciate it at all...

<snip>

After just complaining for a few months to every single person that even mentioned the game, I saw it on sale, and just hoped that patches had solved the major balance issues that plagued the game in the beginning. I was pleasantly surprised. The social policies seem to work just fine, and I can get a more balanced and varied tactic to go with, and the bonuses from adopting and completing a policy gives some reason to even care. The 1upt is still good IMO, I was never a fan of the SoD approach. But just like every aspect of the game, it's just my opinion. 1upt amounts to too much traffic and just limits your military power too much, but why not simply limit the number of units on a tile to just two or something..? The spread out and sometimes very limited resources gives more realism, just like in the real world, you actually have to engage in diplomacy not just steamroller the whole globe to a victory.

I was never a fan of the religions in IV, since basically if you avoided a religion you ended up in war with rest of the world which shared the same religion. It was just plain annoying. And some pretty year, Hannibal appeared on your coast with a stack of grenadiers, and that was the end of fun times...

Anyway, here where some of my thoughts on the game. I enjoy V, and actually I enjoy Civ IV as well. But I think people have to remember (or atleast I remember) that vanilla Civ IV wasn't an awe-inspiring game in the beginning either (compared to the mature III), and IMO most people just resort to straight up nostalgia when talking about it. It matured over time, and once BTS rolled out, it was just fantastic and every bit as addicting as the previous installment. Maybe the best Civ ever. Civ V is a bit different, and although I don't quite see it ever becoming as good as IV, it's still going to get hundreds of hours of play.

I remember seeing one of the early "Civ 4" threads back in 2005.

"WHAT NO PARATROOPERS IN MODERN COMBAT WTH HOW IS THIS MODERN."

Or at least it went something along those lines. Every civ game I see seems to have some people complaining about something. Whether Civ's 4 or 5, they both got crapped on in the beginning .

 

[Akka]

The "nostalgia" crap is tiring. As it has been said about a million times (times a million), Civ4 had some troubles at the beginning, mainly due to performances, but it had already very solid basis and very deep design, and in any case the amount of complaints was several scales lower.

 

[Truthy]

Coming from someone who put hundreds of hours into civ, Civ 5 alone has taken up more of my time than Civ 4, Civ Rev, and Civ 3 combined. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you, I rarely encounter any of the problems you list.

You encounter these problems every time you start up civ V.

 

[Roxlimn]

Akka:

If you're partial to Civ IV, you're misremembering. A lot of Civ players of my acquaintance just outright QUIT in anger when Civ 4 was released. Civ IV's problems were not merely performance-wise. Its AI was incredibad. Like, really, really bad. The practice and advice of rabidly NEVER automating workers dates from the early versions of Civ IV, and it was because the Worker AI just made the most horrible choices. That was what all the AI had to contend with.

Most of Civ 4's design was actually based on Civ 3, so it naturally has solid basis. Of course, Civ 5 is closer to Civ 3, so arguably, Civ 5 is even more solid. A fair amount of the gambits and styles of play in Civ 4 did not develop until well after it was released, and tweaks were made to it afterwards to accommodate those styles of play.

You could say, with justification, that Apolyton and CivFanatics Civ 4 players were instrumental in discovering what was possible with the design and helped to shape it into how it is today. Of course, the late game in Civ 4 is still bad, even today, but it's marginally better.

Civ 5's basic combat design is well thought-out, lasting and being interesting even well into the late-late game, and its character changes from era to era without being as broken as Civ 4's combat still is. Of course, the Civ 5 combat AI isn't very good, but Civ 4's AI is worse - it just isn't as obvious because SoD combat is just that brain-dead.

You could say, with equal justification, that the refusal of Civ 4 grognards in playing and developing ways to play in Civ 5 is going to be a vital weakness in the franchise compared to Civ 4. In other words, part of why it's not as good as it could be, is because you're not playing it!

 

[Brichals]

You could say, with equal justification, that the refusal of Civ 4 grognards in playing and developing ways to play in Civ 5 is going to be a vital weakness in the franchise compared to Civ 4. In other words, part of why it's not as good as it could be, is because you're not playing it!

This is worrying because the Civ4 boards were the best game boards I have ever seen. Here the Civ5 section has turned it around a bit but still there's not much good stuff going on. You know I tried a bit of multiplayer yesterday expecting it to be a disaster because of what I read here. That's why I never tried it. And it worked fine! I wouldn't go as far as to say some elements of CFC are "ruining eSports" but they are not helping at all.

That being said though I think Civ5 will prove itself good enough to attract it's own community and I'm glad I haven't mentally alienated myself from it.

 

[Rhavanna]

They're different. If I had to pick which is a "better" game, I'd have to go with civ 4, but I still enjoy 5 and bounce back and forth between them.

When I play civ4, I find myself wishing the hex system existed, or that giant stacks of units didn't exist. I love all the depth and diplomacy and religion and corps and barbarian cities etc etc. I love how there's so many different play options I have.

When I play civ5, I love the hex grid, love the one-unit-per-tile instead of "my stack is bigger than urs lololol". I love setting up forts on strategic terrain, having units to flank, etc etc. I much prefer combat in civ5. (and when a lone barbarian brute just walks into an undefended city in civ4 i just grrrrrrr). But then I get bored. No health... no city-specific happiness, no trade routes, no religion/corps... it's just too simple. I feel like it's more of a war game than an empire maintenance game.

I have lots of hope that Civ5 will get better in the future, (please make the AI not so dumb!! ) and for now I enjoy it and still play, but when I'm in the mood for a more "serious" game, I boot up civ4.

edit: oh, also tile improvements in civ5 seem so much weaker. Wheat next to a river in civ4 was like 6 food right off the bat, or fish/clams. A mine on some iron was crazy good production. civ5 tile improvements seem like such a minor upgrade in comparison, and that buildings *in* the city are basically just as important. I do like being able to jump-start a new city by just purchasing granary/monument right when you found them.

 

[Truthy]

Civ =/= Combat!

 

[Akka]

Akka:

If you're partial to Civ IV, you're misremembering.

No, I'm not.
There were angry comments when Civ4 was launched, but nowhere as near as the outcry of Civ5 debacle.

Most of Civ 4's design was actually based on Civ 3, so it naturally has solid basis. Of course, Civ 5 is closer to Civ 3, so arguably, Civ 5 is even more solid. A fair amount of the gambits and styles of play in Civ 4 did not develop until well after it was released, and tweaks were made to it afterwards to accommodate those styles of play.

Your premises that Civ3 define the basis and the strenght of both game are just ridiculous, especially considering Civ3 was the most flawed of the serie.

You could say, with equal justification, that the refusal of Civ 4 grognards in playing and developing ways to play in Civ 5 is going to be a vital weakness in the franchise compared to Civ 4. In other words, part of why it's not as good as it could be, is because you're not playing it!

That's one of the most convoluted weird excuse I've ever seen been invented...
Maybe you should wonder WHY the grognards abandonned this pile of dung rather than force themselve to play it and "improve" it ? (hint : the answer lie in the question, and as many people have said, there is no way to "fix" the game as its flaws stem from its very core design).

 

[Roxlimn]

Akka:

No, I'm not.
There were angry comments when Civ4 was launched, but nowhere as near as the outcry of Civ5 debacle.

True. I'm attributing that to Civ 4 players just being more obnoxious about their opinions. There were a lot of silent Civ 3 fans who just quietly never played Civ 4.

Your premises that Civ3 define the basis and the strenght of both game are just ridiculous, especially considering Civ3 was the most flawed of the series.

I challenge you to play Civ now and say that with a straight face.

That's one of the most convoluted weird excuse I've ever seen been invented...
Maybe you should wonder WHY the grognards abandonned this pile of dung rather than force themselve to play it and "improve" it ? (hint : the answer lie in the question, and as many people have said, there is no way to "fix" the game as its flaws stem from its very core design).

Rubbish. Players who say that the problem is 1 UPT simply don't like 1 UPT combat, period. It has no inherent effect on anything else. May I also submit that most of those people's problems could be solved if they were better at 1 UPT combat.

 

[Akka]

Akka:

True. I'm attributing that to Civ 4 players just being more obnoxious about their opinions. There were a lot of silent Civ 3 fans who just quietly never played Civ 4.

No, it has to do with Civ5 being garbage.

I challenge you to play Civ now and say that with a straight face.

Care to make a sentence that actually has a logical sense, because I just can't get what this one is supposed to mean.

Rubbish. Players who say that the problem is 1 UPT simply don't like 1 UPT combat, period. It has no inherent effect on anything else. May I also submit that most of those people's problems could be solved if they were better at 1 UPT combat.

Wow, that's a strong case of denial here.
You reduce all the complaints about the failed design of Civ5 to 1upt (which is certainly quite laughable), and on top of that you go for a childish jab at the supposed unability of people to deal with this single feature, even when the complaints are never about how to handle it (but rather how it makes the game boring), and actually one of the most common complaint is exactly the opposite - that it's TOO EASY to dominate the AI with the 1 UPT combat.

To sum up, you're just grasping at straws in a monumental display of bad faith. There is a word to describe this, but I guess it would be infractable, regardless of its veracity.

 

[Truthy]

Rubbish. Players who say that the problem is 1 UPT simply don't like 1 UPT combat, period.

No, I do not.

It has no inherent effect on anything else.

Let me explain something: Behind the principle of 1UPT was the notion that you would need room to move your troops. If players were able to produce the dozens/hundreds of troops that they did in previous civ games, then there would never have been enough room for all those troops. Therefore, they had to reduce production values for buildings and units so too many units couldn't be produced. After that they increased science output so the player would advance faster and have less time to build.

Next, global happiness was put into effect so that the player couldn't have too many (a lot of cities= a lot of units), giving the game its overall small feeling.

Ideally, this would happen. However two things result in carpets of doom: If you build a lot of cities and keep them small you can still only build the essentials and still produce enough troops. Or as a naturally occurring event, you will acquire more troops as the game advances.

So yes, 1UPT does does affect the entire game.

May I also submit that most of those people's problems could be solved if they were better at 1 UPT combat.

That's crap. The AI suck at combat so no one ever has a had a problem annihilating them in the field.

 

[Brichals]

Let me explain something: Behind the principle of 1UPT was the notion that you would need room to move your troops. If players were able to produce the dozens/hundreds of troops that they did in previous civ games, then there would never have been enough room for all those troops. Therefore, they had to reduce production values for buildings and units so too many units couldn't be produced. After that they increased science output so the player would advance faster and have less time to build.

You don't have to explain anything to the people like the guy you responded too. We play Civ5 remember, unlike most of it's detractors. Units are simply more expensive compared to previous games. They have more investment value. The pacing of everything else relative to this has been improved in patches. Nothing spirals out of control like you say. Maybe 10 mths ago yes, but now it feels much better.

 

[Tatran]

Derrick is right.

The unholy 1 unit per tile mechanic will lead to the infamous carpet of doom.
To prevent this every other aspect of the game needs to be minimized and controlled.
Playing with very small numbers and percentages of it isn't fun.

I've played one civ5 game after months in between some civ4 games
and no matter how they try to shuffle the numbers, the game is still utterly boring.

An expansion pack can have only one important feature, the 1 upt removal and that probably won't happen.

I'm done with civ5 and also with CivWorld.
Another huge failure of Firaxis.
CivWorld has too many features which lead to frustrations.
It consumes too much time, lack of communication, a very bad battlesystem, an annoying science system, etc.
Just like civ5, the nerf machine has started and some features (mini wonders) are already useless.

That company is over. It's time to move on.

 

[aatami]

Derrick is right.

The unholy 1 unit per tile mechanic will lead to the infamous carpet of doom.
To prevent this every other aspect of the game needs to be minimized and controlled.
Playing with very small numbers and percentages of it isn't fun.

I've played one civ5 game after months in between some civ4 games
and no matter how they try to shuffle the numbers, the game is still utterly boring.

An expansion pack can have only one important feature, the 1 upt removal and that probably won't happen.

I'm done with civ5 and also with CivWorld.
Another huge failure of Firaxis.
CivWorld has too many features which lead to frustrations.
It consumes too much time, lack of communication, a very bad battlesystem, an annoying science system, etc.
Just like civ5, the nerf machine has started and some features (mini wonders) are already useless.

That company is over. It's time to move on.

The Carpet of doom is not possible without heavy modding. Can't you people remember that.

 

[Brichals]

Derrick is right.

The unholy 1 unit per tile mechanic will lead to the infamous carpet of doom.
To prevent this every other aspect of the game needs to be minimized and controlled.
Playing with very small numbers and percentages of it isn't fun.

I've played one civ5 game after months in between some civ4 games
and no matter how they try to shuffle the numbers, the game is still utterly boring.

An expansion pack can have only one important feature, the 1 upt removal and that probably won't happen.

I'm done with civ5 and also with CivWorld.
Another huge failure of Firaxis.
CivWorld has too many features which lead to frustrations.
It consumes too much time, lack of communication, a very bad battlesystem, an annoying science system, etc.
Just like civ5, the nerf machine has started and some features (mini wonders) are already useless.

That company is over. It's time to move on.

CivWorld is in beta!!

I highlighted that because it's unfair to criticise it before it gets a regular playerbase going. But my main issue is that people have some opinionn that the Civ franchise is going down the pipes because they are branching into other (perceived as dumbed down) media. I would argue that this is the essence of Civ and Sid Meier. It was somewhat pioneering in itself to have a grand stategy game on PC. Of course it wasn't the first but maybe the genre defining one.

 

[TW_Honorius]

Civ 4 is not like Civ 5, if you expect them to be the same, then you missed the point. Civ 5 is a success if you look at it on its own, trying to compare it to Civ 4 is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Truthy]

You don't have to explain anything to the people like the guy you responded too. We play Civ5 remember, unlike most of it's detractors. Units are simply more expensive compared to previous games. They have more investment value. The pacing of everything else relative to this has been improved in patches. Nothing spirals out of control like you say. Maybe 10 mths ago yes, but now it feels much better.

The principle that units need room to move is still in effect! Therefore, production values are still less than in previous civs, and science output is greater than in previous civs. This has not been patched away. It still exists.

The Carpet of doom is not possible without heavy modding. Can't you people remember that.

Carpets of doom are a reality and always will be one as long as 1UPT exists. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. As the game progresses, the player will acquire more cities and techs and therefore more units. It is just how the civ series works. More units=carpets of doom.

*Carpets of doom does not only refer to situations in which every tile has a unit.

CivWorld is in beta!!

I highlighted that because it's unfair to criticise it before it gets a regular playerbase going. But my main issue is that people have some opinion that the Civ franchise is going down the pipes because they are branching into other (perceived as dumbed down) media. I would argue that this is the essence of Civ and Sid Meier. It was somewhat pioneering in itself to have a grand stategy game on PC. Of course it wasn't the first but maybe the genre defining one.

It's facebook for crying out loud! Facebook! Civ World is a greedy monstrosity. It is Sid Meier's Mr.Hyde. It It never will be good.

Civ 4 is not like Civ 5, if you expect them to be the same, then you missed the point.

And what is the point? That civ v was designed to be a failure and I should just accept that?

Civ 5 is a success if you look at it on its own

What success? The large and continuous stream of flaws? The broken mechanics? The boredom? The unplayable multiplayer?

trying to compare it to Civ 4 is like comparing apples to oranges.

And why are they not comparable? Because one is an apple and the other is an orange? No, they are both video games in the same series. The only difference is that one is a delicious and sweet apple (very fun to play) and the other is rotten. They are 100%, absolutely comparable and don't tell me otherwise.

 

[Raneman]

What Civ V really needs to fix it right now is a good old $20 expansion on the scale of BTS. Forget all this 1 civ DLC <snip>, I simply don't find that worth it

Moderator Action: Watch the language, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Truthy]

What Civ V really needs to fix it right now is a good old $20 expansion on the scale of BTS. Forget all this 1 civ DLC <snip>, I simply don't find that worth it

Seconded!