CIV 5, 10 months after release

[Lloyd_Ortega]

I'm skeptical about diplomacy improving. I don't see anything to indicate it'll be better than Civ IV's diplomacy. It's true Civ V's diplomatic system can barely get worse though. The fact of the matter is, AI are too aggressive, and are willing to overturn a history entirely composed of peace to take some land from you (or try in vain to, ha).

Civ V diplomacy lacks something that could unify blocks of Civ, like Religion in Civ IV. I'm waiting to see what they're planning in their next patch to see if they're going to tackle the IA problems.

But I think Civ V receives a lot of underserved critics because it's examined under Civ IV playstyle. Hex and 1upt are two big changes which make Civ V and Civ IV very different. If you try to play Civ V in a "Civ V" spirit, you may come to enjoy it a lot more.

Alas I agree with a lot of you, Firaxis didn't do their best with Civ V and they've succumbed to the sirens of DLC, and all that goes with it.

 

[Windsor]

But I think Civ V receives a lot of underserved critics because it's examined under Civ IV playstyle. Hex and 1upt are two big changes which make Civ V and Civ IV very different. If you try to play Civ V in a "Civ V" spirit, you may come to enjoy it a lot more.

What's the "Civ 5 spirit"?

 

[Roxlimn]

I'm skeptical about diplomacy improving. I don't see anything to indicate it'll be better than Civ IV's diplomacy. It's true Civ V's diplomatic system can barely get worse though. The fact of the matter is, AI are too aggressive, and are willing to overturn a history entirely composed of peace to take some land from you (or try in vain to, ha).

I actually think Civ V's diplomacy is about on par or better than IV's diplomacy. Right now, V's diplomacy is all about money and trading. You still use the AI, but it's not quite as auto-pilot. IV's diplomacy is all about using Religion to make the AI essentially play into the player's hands. I find it hard to call that "rich" or any such descriptor.

Derrick CB:

I answered your assertion that 1UPT affects everything, directly and to the point. Others go on to bash on Civ V in unrelated fashion, but they get it and I don't?

The only thing that unites Civ V ranters is that they hate Civ V, unreasonably, and often contrary to facts. I don't see how it's impossible to roleplay Civ V because of an "inability to change empire name," but when it's pointed out that it's possible to do that, it's beside the point.

WTH?

If all you want to do is rant incoherently, please confine it to the rant thread.

Moderator Action: Please do not tell other people to 'confine it to the rant thread'. If you have a problem with a post, report it, don't respond telling people where you think they should or should not post. That's considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lloyd_Ortega]

What's the "Civ 5 spirit"?

I'm sorry, sometimes I wrote gibberish english. I meant play Civ 5 the way it was intended.

Like build a little but well-rounded army, use 1 upt to your advantage (chokes become great place to defend), make the best of social policies. Don't spam wonders and focus those hammers (same could be said in Civ IV, but it's even more true in Civ V). Build scaled happiness empire, understand that Civ 5 revolve around resources, luxury or strategic, and trade.

Or, as in each Civ, go try things and build a gigantic army and build tons of cities ICS style by picking the right sp. Cultural victory, optimal in 1 or 4 cities ? Etc.

 

[Fabiano79]

I actually think Civ V's diplomacy is about on par or better than IV's diplomacy. Right now, V's diplomacy is all about money and trading. You still use the AI, but it's not quite as auto-pilot. IV's diplomacy is all about using Religion to make the AI essentially play into the player's hands. I find it hard to call that "rich" or any such descriptor.

Derrick CB:

I answered your assertion that 1UPT affects everything, directly and to the point. Others go on to bash on Civ V in unrelated fashion, but they get it and I don't?

The only thing that unites Civ V ranters is that they hate Civ V, unreasonably, and often contrary to facts. I don't see how it's impossible to roleplay Civ V because of an "inability to change empire name," but when it's pointed out that it's possible to do that, it's beside the point.

WTH?

If all you want to do is rant incoherently, please confine it to the rant thread.

Yep, lest not complain and close our eyes. Also lets buy every DLCeven if its just one building for $10.

Moderator Action: This is not at all conducive to civil discussion. There's no need to be snarky.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The rant thread is the best thread on the forum right now and is sad that we have only there to express our disappointment. This forum was suppose to discuss civ games and not just for plp congratulate firaxis. If you like ciV, good for you. But please dont try to make plp who doesnt look like idiots. We are not the ones jumping around because the new DLC will bring a brand new overpowered civ.

Moderator Action: Tit-for-tat isn't a good way to deal with trolling. Please report posts you have a problem with, rather than responding.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Roxlimn]

Fabiano79:

That kind of input is exactly what I'm talking about. The rant thread is the absolute worst thread right now on the forum, save that it collects all the useless vitriol that used to be everywhere and allows good discussions to happen without random haters clogging every thread.

There is no reason to close our eyes, and I have not done so. I point out a LOT of very obvious things that people who hate Civ V do not or choose not to understand, in their unreasoning hate. Things like that belong in the rant thread, not elsewhere, so let's please let it stay there.

This thread is about the status of Civ V 10 months in. Haters cannot know because they are no longer playing the game, or probably don't even want to acknowledge positive changes when and if they happen. They should stay in their justly corralled places.

Moderator Action: This post is not at all acceptable. You are attacking those who post in the rants threads (trolling), calling their posts 'useless vitriol' (trolling), telling them to go away and post in the rants thread (trolling) and labelling other posters 'haters' (trolling). Everyone is welcome to post in a thread so long as they are making a contribution conducive to civil discussion. This post is an example of one that does not do that. If you have a problem with another post, you should report it rather than respond.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Fabiano79]

Fabiano79:

That kind of input is exactly what I'm talking about. The rant thread is the absolute worst thread right now on the forum, save that it collects all the useless vitriol that used to be everywhere and allows good discussions to happen without random haters clogging every thread.

There is no reason to close our eyes, and I have not done so. I point out a LOT of very obvious things that people who hate Civ V do not or choose not to understand, in their unreasoning hate. Things like that belong in the rant thread, not elsewhere, so let's please let it stay there.

This thread is about the status of Civ V 10 months in. Haters cannot know because they are no longer playing the game, or probably don't even want to acknowledge positive changes when and if they happen. They should stay in their justly corralled places.

There has been good changes on ciV. Every patch brought more balance to the game. But you are wrong when you say that plp who are not happy with civ should not express themselves. If we not complain, the real changes will not come.

Its a mistake to move every "against ciV thread" to the rant thread. What you are saying is pretty much "CiV, love it or leave it". I heard that before from our dictators down here. I would like to have a better english, so I could try to change your mind.

 

[mtrein]

Fabiano79:

That kind of input is exactly what I'm talking about. The rant thread is the absolute worst thread right now on the forum, save that it collects all the useless vitriol that used to be everywhere and allows good discussions to happen without random haters clogging every thread.

There is no reason to close our eyes, and I have not done so. I point out a LOT of very obvious things that people who hate Civ V do not or choose not to understand, in their unreasoning hate. Things like that belong in the rant thread, not elsewhere, so let's please let it stay there.

This thread is about the status of Civ V 10 months in. Haters cannot know because they are no longer playing the game, or probably don't even want to acknowledge positive changes when and if they happen. They should stay in their justly corralled places.

You say no facts back up the disappointment of around half the Civilization community, and that goes to show one of two things: Either you are in a state of denial like a few others or you really like Civ5 as it is. Either way, there is no denying Civ5 has strayed a lot from the civilization series and people have the right to complain.

Don't be lazy and have a look at lots of other threads (not only the rants thread) for the facts you say you missed. There is no rebuking those if you have at least a tiny bit of common sense (unless you really are in a state of denial).

Moderator Action: This post constitutes an attack on the other poster, saying that they are in a state of denial or do not have any common sense. That's considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Truthy]

Fabiano79:

That kind of input is exactly what I'm talking about. The rant thread is the absolute worst thread right now on the forum, save that it collects all the useless vitriol that used to be everywhere and allows good discussions to happen without random haters clogging every thread.

Nice to see that you write off everyone with an opinion contrary to your own as a "hater".

There is no reason to close our eyes, and I have not done so. I point out a LOT of very obvious things that people who hate Civ V do not or choose not to understand, in their unreasoning hate. Things like that belong in the rant thread, not elsewhere, so let's please let it stay there.

Such as my previous complaints of the game, all of which were valid and reasonably found, yet they did not yield an equally reasonable response.

This thread is about the status of Civ V 10 months in. Haters cannot know because they are no longer playing the game, or probably don't even want to acknowledge positive changes when and if they happen.

I have played 730 hours of Civ V. All of my complaints about the game have been reasonably found and I am unappreciative that you seem to think it is appropriate of you to ignore everyone who disagrees with you. Read my previous posts in this thread. You will see that very few of the problems have been fixed and they never will.

They should stay in their justly corralled places.c

Should I remind you that this forum is for people to discuss civilization whether they like the game or not?

 

[Roxlimn]

Fabiano79:

There has been good changes on ciV. Every patch brought more balance to the game. But you are wrong when you say that plp who are not happy with civ should not express themselves. If we not complain, the real changes will not come.

There are constructive critiques, and things which just don't help. The majority of rants from ranters go into the latter category. That is why they've been corralled.

mtrein:

You say no facts back up the disappointment of around half the Civilization community, and that goes to show one of two things: Either you are in a state of denial like a few others or you really like Civ5 as it is. Either way, there is no denying Civ5 has strayed a lot from the civilization series and people have the right to complain.

Compare to Civ 3. Civ 5 is more like Civs 1, 2, and 3 than 4 is. Civ 4 is the outlier here, not Civ 5.

Derrick CB:

Such as my previous complaints of the game, all of which were valid and reasonably found, yet they did not yield an equally reasonable response.

I addressed your complaint. You have yet to counter my very reasonable and logical counter.

I have played 730 hours of Civ V. All of my complaints about the game have been reasonably found and I am unappreciative that you seem to think it is appropriate of you to ignore everyone who disagrees with you. Read my previous posts in this thread. You will see that very few of the problems have been fixed and they never will.

If so, then you are not contributing to the development of Civ 5, since you have no hope of your complaints with the game ever being fixed. If it's the 1UPT, you're right, it will never be fixed, because that is one of the core assumptions of Civ 5. It is not helpful or productive to anyone to continue to belabor the merits or demerits of one of the game's core mechanics.

Should I remind you that this forum is for people to discuss civilization whether they like the game or not?

The forum is to discuss Civ 5. That includes people who like the game. Complainant such as yourself are much too vocal about things which won't change, and do not help anyone. Stay in the rants thread, please. It is in the forums, that is the thread for such as you.

This is about Civ 5 10 months down the line.

Moderator Action: Again, if you have a problem with a post, report it rather than responding. Telling people where you think they should or should not post is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bitula]

Civ 5 is more like Civs 1, 2, and 3 than 4 is. Civ 4 is the outlier here, not Civ 5.

Look, this is absolutely false. You are intentionally misleading people who never played games from previous series. I bet you didnt even play Civ1. You should think before posting something intended to be a fact, because other people are reading your posts and you are misinforming them, which is much worse than even a non-constructive rant.

Moderator Action: Please do not accuse others of 'intentionally misleading people,' as it is considered trolling. You are welcome to disagree with the post, but you should do so in a way that doesn't constitute an attack on the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thormodr]

Compare to Civ 3. Civ 5 is more like Civs 1, 2, and 3 than 4 is. Civ 4 is the outlier here, not Civ 5.

Lol. Did you honestly type that with a straight face?

Moderator Action: This first line is not at all conducive to civil discussion, and is entirely superfluous to your argument. Please be more careful in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Civilization 5 is closest to Civ III that's true and Civ III was largely regarded as the worst Civ in the series until Civilization 5 came out.

Other than that, Civilization 5 is nothing like the old games and I have put in thousands upon thousands of hours into them and can attest to that.

You seem to be going against the general trend of people praising Civilization 5 for striking off in a new direction by now stating that it's gone back to its roots.

Civilization 5 has definitely gone off in a new direction, I'll concede. It's just not the direction that a large number of us wanted.

 

[Roxlimn]

bitula:

You would lose that bet. For proof, I can tell you for certain that all Civs in Civ 1 had the Legion unit for the Iron Working technology, and that they all also had Phalanxes for the Bronze Working tech. I played all the Civs from Civ1.

Thormodr:

I liked Civ 3 just fine. I thought that it was best until Civ IV came out, and I still broke it out from time to time even until BTS, just as I'm sure you'd do the same with Civ IV. What I didn't do was pollute the Civ 4 threads with all manner of nonsense just because I liked Civ 3 a lot.

I am going against the general trend of young guys praising Civ for going off in a new direction because I'm old enough to remember what the old Civ games were like. Civ 5 is more like them in many, many, many ways than Civ IV. Its chief difference is in hex tiles, 1UPT, and the incorporation of many ideas from Civ 4! In many other respects, it is a return to form for Civ.

 

[bitula]

You would lose that bet. For proof, I can tell you for certain that all Civs in Civ 1 had the Legion unit for the Iron Working technology, and that they all also had Phalanxes for the Bronze Working tech. I played all the Civs from Civ1.

Ok, you know, thats not the point, you are just diverting the topic, please back up your statement:
Civ 5 is more like Civs 1, 2, and 3 than 4 is. Civ 4 is the outlier here, not Civ 5.

This was your statement right?

Or you wanna say that that Civ 1 had the Legion unit for the Iron Working technology makes it similar to Civ5? You cannot be serious right? We are talking about the overall gameplay experience and mechanics and not coincidences in unit production and technology tree.

Edit: oh and leave out Civ3, that one is controversial, so I may as well accept that it was closer to civ5.

 

[mtrein]

bitula:


(..)

I am going against the general trend of young guys praising Civ for going off in a new direction because I'm old enough to remember what the old Civ games were like. Civ 5 is more like them in many, many, many ways than Civ IV. Its chief difference is in hex tiles, 1UPT, and the incorporation of many ideas from Civ 4! In many other respects, it is a return to form for Civ.

Clear state of denial

Perhaps we should open a thread for people like you, hmm?

Moderator Action: This is nothing less than a personal attack. It's considered trolling. Warning for multiple posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Thread closed. To be cleaned up tomorrow.

Suffice to say for now; do not make posts attacking other members or groups or members. If you have a problem with a post, report it rather than responding.