[CIV 5 Issues] - The complete list

This reminds me of a few. Mainly, the End Turn button appears prematurely, I'll select it and then the game realizes I still have stuff to do and ask me for more orders, and early in the game I get confused and assume it's my next turn.

Please, no placeholder techs! I can't stand useless techs! In fact, if possible, I'd like to see more passive bonuses with techs, and not just unlocking buildings. This tech tree makes me miss the Civ 4 tree in that regard, but I do not miss the Civ 3 tech tree!

 

Here are mine

Menu and Game Options
Load screen will NOT show user created folders - Given the oversized font used and limited viewing space, it becomes an issue when the save folder is clogged up with a lot of saves. I usually create an 'archives' folder to store my older saved games.


Messages and Notifications
No notifications if known Civs go to war with another Civ. This is inconsistent with the fact that we do get notification is a known Civ goes to war with a known CS.


AI & Unit behaviour
-Puppet states should focus on happiness/culture buildings. If those run out, default to player defined 'wealth' or 'science'
-Puppet states building spam cripple the AI just as much as they do human players. And humans are better able to manage
-Alternative is to allow greater control of what puppet states build at some additional cost.

Gameplay & Game mechanics
-Trading posts should be a transient improvement. Though Civ4 style evolving cottages not required, having the same +2 gold time improvement from 1 AD to 2050 AD is unrealistic. Not to mention the graphics are butt ugly.
-Re balance Trading posts to scale in power by era. +2 gold ancient +2 gold +1 hammer classical/medieval (settlement)
+2 gold +1 hammer +1 happiness when worked Renaissance/Industrial (at this point improvement becomes a village) ; +2 gold +2 hammer +1 happiness when worked Modern/Future (improvement becomes suburb / town)

 

Technology isn't useful for technologies sake. Most of them simply unlock buildings or units, almost none of them simply enhance your civilization. This means that research is often not as important as production. I think only the Railroad feels like a tech that stands by itself. Maybe civil service.

In fact, railroad is last tech that gives any passive bonus.

Give each leader different diplomacy flavor text. Having them 'say' the same things, and not actually have parse-able speech (for pretty much any one person on the planet) means they end up all feeling the same instead of different.

Add more animations. Bored disinterest seems to be the only emotion any of them have.

Rebalance Maritime city-states. Change them to giving % boosts to growth instead of static bonus to Food. (+10%/20% in capital, +15%/30% in capital, etc).

Add in-game clock

Have option to remove 'movement' animations

Move 'quick combat' option to Options menu.

 

I dont like the empty tech idea but i proposed it as an alternative to slow down, if for some reason that was rejected.

More ideas: Multiple transports per hex (3?) would make amphib. much more fesiable and require a smaller combat navy.
Can give baisic orders to puppet states, like build flavor.
Can conscript from puppet states.
Religion as a set of Policies, that usually cancel eachother out.
Espianage in some form.

Cant rember my others at present will add more later...

 

Hi - long time lurker but needed somewhere to get this off my chest:

What the hell is with the victory/ending? Talk about disappointing.

Finished my first game yesterday (well second after a disaster with over expansion/unhappiness - lesson learnt).

Really enjoyed it (was a island nation - Prince level so massively over-teched compared to everyone else - spent the game waging war against the barbaric Askai, liberated 3 city states he had captured, won the game by invading the "big" continent, and my erstwhile ally Napoleon, liberating 4 more city states, and Hiwatha and Gahndi: leading to happy Diplomatic victory.)

And then I was told I had won. Yes, yes, nice picture of that awful looking 70's architecture that is the UN. I want to see the game stats! Click "Done".

Get taken to title screen.

What!? Where the hell is the map replay, the graphs, the affirmation that the previous 10 hours had not been a waste!??

I noticed that there were options at the top of the victory picture for demographics but this was as I was clicking Done. I will have to replay 3 turns (of combat...) to get to that point again.

Civ 5: Enjoyed the game, looking forward to Emperor level (and multiplayer: but maybe not after hearing the complaints). Really like the way wars are fought now -there is actually a reason to stick some men in a fort on a hill.

The Ending: Seemed to be just a big "FU, we couldn't be bothered".


And speaking of which - what the hell is the deal with the advisor graphics? Are they from Civ 1 or something?

(And the Next Turn button should flash up green, to distinguish from next unit).

 

Welcome to posting, TomMcV.

I agree. You spend 10, 20, 30 or more hours playing a game, then you get this crappy picture screen with hardly any information. No cool movie. No interesting graphs. No nice replay. Nothing. Surely there should be some kind of reward for playing through the game. All previous versions had it, and right in the original versions. What's up with Civ5?

Unfortunately, I fear it may be a big "FU, pay extra for it as DLC later". That would be exceptionally lame - intentionally releasing an incomplete game just to charge us for the pieces that complete it later. Paid DLC should complement existing structure in the game, not complete unfinished bits and pieces central to the game experience.

 

You can hit shift-tab to open the Steam overlay, and that has a clock display at the top. Not as good as a real in-game clock of course.

 

Why just a movie? Why not have a guy from Firaxis coming home to you and celebrate with you, throwing confetti at you, and carry you around while he sings Queen's "We are the champions"?

I probably played through Civ 4 about 50+ times. How many times did I care to see the video? MAYBE one. I've completed CiV 6 times already, and I've not missed the video once... Seriously. Why do you need to rub it in, you know you've won the game, right?

If the game was 150 hours to complete, and you'll complete it only once, and it had a grand storyline or something, then maybe an end movie is a central part of the experience. But not in CiV.

 

I love that guy! I was disappointed when he stopped coming to my house for Civ5.

Seriously, though, you're just focusing on one part of the guy's complaint, and it's a legitimate one. The ending of the game is very sudden and forced. Video. No video? Kind of the least important part here, though I agree it would have been nice. No, the real issue is the lack of replay features from previous versions of Civ. All you get is the demographics screen, which only tells you who's first and last. How is that helpful? "So... I'm not last... but I'm also not first in approval. Huh."

The sad part is that everyone has discovered the replay folder at this point with the replays in it. This means that it is a feature they were working on for the game, but never finished as it's not exactly easy to remove that code half way. (Especially since when you have no time to finish something, you definitely don't have time to remove it either).

I believe people are working on modding in the replay features, such as the map showing how the civs grew and adapted through the ages (data found in the current replay files) and some nice graphs so we can compare how we did. Really, it's just nice to have something like this unwind with after a long game. You can't seriously tell me that you just skip seeing how your empire did after you win and just go, "Okay, score. Fine, whatever. Main menu. Finally! I can't believe it took me nearly 10 seconds to get back here."

 

Just to offer an alternative perspective, it's quite possible it was not a matter of "they couldn't remove it" but rather they deliberately left it in. After all, writing the code to record the replay data is probably easier than writing the code that plays back the replay. And the games that players are finishing now will have those replays recorded so they can be viewed later in the replay viewer.

It would be fairly disappointing if we find out a replay viewer gets axed entirely (as it seems fairly clear it was intended for there to be one), but it will come as a pleasant surprise to many gamers when they discover all those first playthroughs of the game have been recorded for them to relive! I would wager that by far the majority of players do not go venturing into these folders and so don't even know they're there.

 

You're right, of course.

I was just pointing out that it was likely left in do to time constraints rather than any other reasons, and I probably worded it awkwardly. I just hope they get on it, as I honestly foresee a fan made mod making use of those replay files before Firaxis does anything official. (Though I'm always willing to be surprised ).

 

The "trade route broken" bug should be listed (there's a thread on this - seems like once harbors are built, the trade route ignores roads, until the sea is disrupted by a barb ship, then it takes a turn to reset).

 

This is a fantastic thread! I really hope the Firaxis team review it. Here's my two cents...

Format It would be easier if you numbered the bullets (1.1, 1.2, etc.).

Content
-Bring back ability to bomb improvements with aircraft, especially bombing roads/railroads
-Bring back the wonders of the world screen, there is currently no way to know what wonders have been build, by who, or where (except by scrolling through the log)
-Bring back the top 5 cities screen, this is more fluff, but I'm confused as to why they took it out
-The legal warning before opening the mod section needs to show once and then stop appearing every damned time you open the screen

 

Hello everyone,


I had originally written a long thought out piece on the various things that have disappointed me in Civ five, but on re-reading it, it bored me to tears so i thought i'd just write my criticisms and idea's in the form of some bulletpoints instead, please note, there are many things about the game that i really like, but since they are'nt what's bothering me about the game i have'nt mentioned them!


Ok here we go:


.The leaders are too aggressive, resulting in a generic feel to them, they have very little distinctive character, there should be an average of two or three crazy warmongers at the most on a standard size map.

.When a war breaks out among rival civs, they almost always fight to the death, this makes it very boring on continent maps when you take your little caravel out to discover the new world and almost always dissapointingly find one huge blob covering the entire continent.

.It's impossible to make long lasting allies, i find that dissatisfying.

.Liberating a civ's capital city and having it hate you for it is also dissatisfying.

.Having a leader hate you one turn, like you the next, and hate you again on the next turn without having any idea why is confusing.

.the only emotion from any leader i have ever seen written next to their name in the UI is "HOSTILE", where's happy? or even dopey or bashful?

.I'd like to know what luxury resources i have without having to talk to a leader to find out, strategic resources are at the top of the screen but i can't find the luxury ones anywhere.

.the UI has some important features (global politics for one) hidden away behind too many mouse-clicks, it feels unintuitive.

.i can't zoom in as much as i'd like to and i can't move around in city view.

.Border tensions make leaders hate you far too much, there should be a penalty of course (a huge one if the founding of the city actually took some worked tiles away), but it should be managable to some degree by giving them gifts to compensate, many leaders of a peaceful outlook should get less angry and be more open to receive gifts as a token of apology, right now they all feel too unforgiving.

.A leader should not call you bloodthirsty for defensive wars (unless you razed cities), and he should never call you that if he has recently started a war himself, no diplomatic penalty should be incurred for waging a defensive war in which no cities were razed.

.A leader that invites you to war on another should not consider you bloodthirsty once the war is over (again unless you raze cities), although other civs may.

.Any peaceful AI civ which has become large should not necessarily turn into a warmonger just because domination is the easiest path to victory, currently peaceful civ's seem to be turning into warmongers once they reach a certain size, it makes for a repetitive and predictable experience, in my opinion this is partly what is stripping the various leader's of their "flavour".

.Warmongers should be hated more by all civs in the later stages of the game to reflect the enlightened modern age.

.Maintenance costs have been crippling for me at end game, even with stock exchanges built and all commerce abilities unlocked.

.No graphs, bars or detailed summary at the end of the game, i really liked that, it was like a small reward for trying even if i had lost as usual.

.That's pretty much it!


If you've been kind enough to read this far you may well be thinking that these are all completely subjective viewpoints and i would agree with you completely, i certainly would'nt want for anything to be changed that a majority of people liked, i just wanted to give my two cents worth on my own personal experience with the game so far.

(after re-reading looks like a lot more than 2 cents, sorry about that lol

Moderator Action: I think your posts fits perfectly into this thread, so I moved it here.

 

I appreciate you reading and revising your post. I've seen a bazillion walls of text made by people with qualms about Civ5 mechanics.

You seem to have put some thought into this list, and a lot of your points are valid. Moderator Action: <snip> Please leave moderator decisions to mods, if you think a duplicate thread exists, please report it. Thanks!

 

I agree with a lot of points, and appreciate the constructive criticsm rathern than raging that it's not like BTS 2.0

That's relative. I felt civ4 diplomacy was too 'set in stone' and leaders too passive once you switch to a common religion.

There needs to be some work, such as more information displayed (but not too muc)
Diplomacy needs to be a puzzle.

I play continents game and yes, 1 civ does tend to gian the upper hand, it is realistic. But this happens in Civ4 and Civ3 also. Much less apparent in Civ4 due to vassal states. losing civs will usually Civ in before losing any more cities.

It's possible, but again, UI and the text you get don't give you the feeling they are you allies. They never acknowledge a good alliance or you as a friend to them. Something Civ4 AI did more frequently.

Same as above. AI Civs doesn't seem to have tools to show appreciation. And there's no indicator for them to show it.

That may be a unique case. I find AI attitudes to be consistent. And they DO REMEMBER specific events now. Unlike previous Civ games which relied on modifiers and specific flags more than actual memory of things happening.

agreed. needs to have friendly/cautious/annoyed/hostile

Agreed

agreed

Agreed on both!

 

What's the deal with Ramkhamhaeng? I haven't met him in-game yet but I played Siam and in some places in the game I see the pudgy, friendly, middle-aged old man, and in others I see the awesome, mighty younger man. The "stand the test of time" screen when you start a game as Siam shows the older guy, and I understand that is the one that shows up in the diplomacy screen but the icons in various places like the savegame screen show the younger guy. Which is it? This is incredibly sloppy.

Not to mention, apparently the guy doesn't look Thai at all, but like some Chinese guy that the Thais really hate right now, according to this topic: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=374307

 

This reminds me of another bug (in text if not in actions) which I found with the AI. Catherine and Askia had both declared war on Washington to dogpile him. Earlier they had both asked me to join them in the war, but I politely refused because I couldn't see the in-game situation while in diplomacy (a separate issue which needs fixing). However, after evaluating the situation I decided that it'd be okay for me to declare on Washington, so I went back into diplomacy with Catherine/Askia, and what is their answer to my offer of war with Washington?

"We've been over this before, and the answer is no."

WHAT? You're both at war with him, idiots! Not to mention you just asked me to join you before. Why are you now turning down my help not a turn later? At least fix the text if not the action, to display something like: "If you want to go to war with them go ahead, it's not our concern." Better though would be to fix the action, to make the AI WANT to have extra allies in a war.

I went and declared war on Washington anyway myself, but it felt rather silly that the AI were such morons about it.

Yeah, I know. I get the feeling the whole game was being pushed and pushed by the bosses up top, so they ended up just saying, "oh well, we don't have time to finish that now, we'll just put a placeholder there". Very sloppy. You notice it in a whole lot of other leader screens too (particularly the bland backgrounds), as well as all across other aspects of the game (research/production balance issues, etc). The whole thing feels rather rushed.

 

Hey all. First post here. I noticed some things while playing that I didn't see here, though it seems you guys got all the major issues. I'm not posting this to start an e-fight. These are just things that irked/annoyed/got me wondering while I was playing.

• Ranged barbarian units never counterattack when in their spawn fort. In the several games I've played they just sit there and let my archers perforate them over 2-3 turns. This is not a problem when they're out ravaging, only when they're at "home".
• The AI seems brain-damaged. They say things that are out of character or inappropriate based on current events in-game. (Ex. 1: while playing George Washington I asked Rome for trade (open borders, I believe). They refused, stating that I was too bloodthirsty and they used what I had done to the city of Washington as an example. Um, what? I'm Washington. That's my capital. It's thriving.) (Ex. 2: Askia was getting rolled by Ghandi AND me (through separate declarations) and he had lost half his cities to Ghandi. I decided to ask for peace but the option wasn't available (grayed out). The text for him said "Lost the stomach for fighting?" or something equally obtuse. Five turns later Ghandi conquered Askia's remaining cities.)
• No option to liberate AI civ capitals.
• No option to raze city-states.
• No option to break alliances with city-states save through declaring on them. (Why would you want to? Well, I had plenty of units (read as "too many") when I liberated a militaristic city-state. So they started giving me more (inferior) units every 17 turns. They started with a Scout. Um, no thanks.) I'd rather militaristic city-states reduce the upgrade or purchase cost of military units rather than them giving random units. That would also be more in line with other city-state benefits.
• Reward for gifting units to city-states is virtually worthless. You get +2 influence per unit you gift them. That disappears in 2 turns on average. The reward should be larger, and you should get additional benefit if the city-state is at war (possibly even more if the city-state is actively threatened by enemy units).
• In my games I have been unable to break pacts of any kind. I read here that it's in the diplomacy --> Discuss.. screen, but for me it was grayed out.
• Zoom to unit. Option to turn it off would be really nice. What would make it actually useful is zooming to ready units based on proximity, so it wouldn't go from a horseman at the front lines to a worker on the other side of the continent to a caravel in the middle of the ocean then back to the front lines for a catapult. It would go from the horseman to the catapult next to him to the pikeman two tiles away, etc. THEN it would zoom to the worker halfway across the continent.

If I've repeated stuff I apologize. As always, your mileage may vary.


Mr.Vassal

 

Needs Hotseat.

Some resources depleating dont make sense, ex. Horses (you build a pasture, so they would breed right?).
Others deplete to fast, ex. Iron is no more by the renesance, oil is depleted realy quick, coal -the same; I understand that this makes resources more strategic but when just to make a defencive army i need 3+ sources of iron, its kinda rediculus.