[CIV 5 Issues] - The complete list
- Thread starter poncratias
- Start date
Does anyone know when the issue regarding submarines been seen by all adjacent units will be fix. It is a big issue.
See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=383021 for further details
See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=383021 for further details
GiuseppeIII
The Third Giuseppe
Or when they release DLL/SDK/whatever it's called...
I imagine that will be at least a minimum of 6 months from now unfortunately.
It will be nice to let modders do their thing that's for sure.
JamesCivFan
King
The most important issue for me is the constant wars that are going on between AI's. In my last 2 games I even took screenshots of the diplomacy screen on turns 171 and 185 , both with the same settings: Large, Emperor, Continents, 14 civilizations, 14 City States. (I don't know how to upload them here for people to see though).
I understand that there could be 1-2 warmongers in each game. But, I can't believe it was the developers' ultimate purpose to see every single nation to be at war with at least one civilization, all the time in each game. For example in my current game as Darius (same settings as above), there are already 2 backstabbers, about 6-7 nations that are at war with 2 civilizations at the same time and 2-3 that are with 3 nations at the same time. These numbers are pretty much the same in each game, which is tiring to see after 2 games or so.
Montezuma went further and declared on me too (so that makes it four nations), only to bring a single catapult about 5 tiles away from my borders (we're not immediate neighbors) and then when I asked him for peace, he immediately accepted it and became friendly. So what was the point of this declaration anyway?
To conclude, I would like to ask the developers if this was what they had in mind, and if the answer is "no", then how difficult is to make the AIs not to declare war and back stab so often, especially after turn 80-90?
(If a "firaxian" is reading this , I'd like to have a simple "yes or no" answer about their purpose. Would be great to at least know if this can be considered an issue or not.)
I understand that there could be 1-2 warmongers in each game. But, I can't believe it was the developers' ultimate purpose to see every single nation to be at war with at least one civilization, all the time in each game. For example in my current game as Darius (same settings as above), there are already 2 backstabbers, about 6-7 nations that are at war with 2 civilizations at the same time and 2-3 that are with 3 nations at the same time. These numbers are pretty much the same in each game, which is tiring to see after 2 games or so.
Montezuma went further and declared on me too (so that makes it four nations), only to bring a single catapult about 5 tiles away from my borders (we're not immediate neighbors) and then when I asked him for peace, he immediately accepted it and became friendly. So what was the point of this declaration anyway?
To conclude, I would like to ask the developers if this was what they had in mind, and if the answer is "no", then how difficult is to make the AIs not to declare war and back stab so often, especially after turn 80-90?
(If a "firaxian" is reading this , I'd like to have a simple "yes or no" answer about their purpose. Would be great to at least know if this can be considered an issue or not.)
jtb1127
Deity
I have one that I am not sure whether it has been reported yet:
Player is forced to pay five dollars when downloading new civs from steam.
Player is forced to pay five dollars when downloading new civs from steam.
Ahh, the infamous "halfsies" bug. Thats actually suppose to be $10 for the new civs, the developers have felt cheated about that little bug for a while now...
jtb1127
Deity
Ahh, the infamous "halfsies" bug. Thats actually suppose to be $10 for the new civs, the developers have felt cheated about that little bug for a while now...
Yes, that's exactly the problem I was reporting. It has nothing to do with having to pay $5 for one civilization in the first place, its just they are not expensive enough. Poor, poor developers. They never get quite as much money as they deserve.
waynester10
Chieftain
I am convinced after spending a lot of time trying to work around it and upgrade my system that Civ5 is just inherently unstable playing with ANY mod. I've upgraded my video card twice, upgraded the power supply, and tried a number of things from the tech support part of this forum. It is not the fault of the modders that the game is unstable when you use a mod. Civ5 plays fine for me without mods but when I play with ANY mod it always ends up freezing up so I cannot finish. Going back to a saved game does not change the problem. This is I think the worst problem with Civ5. If mods worked right and did not destabilize the game, the game would be a lot more fun to me.
Valbuena
Warlord
Idk if some1 has already mentioned that, but when you are razing a city, it's pointless to choose it's production. It shouldn't ask you about that, coz the city will dissappear in few turns.
yeah that would make sense
Civsassin
Immortal
Idk if some1 has already mentioned that, but when you are razing a city, it's pointless to choose it's production. It shouldn't ask you about that, coz the city will dissappear in few turns.
Choosing a razing city's production does make sense. A city may not be razed even though that's what the coqueror chose to do. The player may choose to stop the razing process any time before the final turn. Additionally, another player can take/retake the city and stop the razing process.
Yes I agree with you that some1 can take/retake the city and stop razing, and that the player can stop razing.
But when a city is razing, then there is totally chaos in the city, and while it's razing it should produce 0 production, so there will be no sense to choose production.
I hope you get what I mean, regardless to my bad English
But when a city is razing, then there is totally chaos in the city, and while it's razing it should produce 0 production, so there will be no sense to choose production.
I hope you get what I mean, regardless to my bad English
Civsassin
Immortal
Yes I agree with you that some1 can take/retake the city and stop razing, and that the player can stop razing.
But when a city is razing, then there is totally chaos in the city, and while it's razing it should produce 0 production, so there will be no sense to choose production.
I hope you get what I mean, regardless to my bad English
I do see your pointy; choose production once the city can produce and not before. That would make sense.
I was going to ask for suggestions on which economical laptop to buy so i can easily play civ5 since my toshiba Satellite A215 won't play it but after reading these posts, i think i'll stick with civ4 bts.
my input on all thes bug problems, steam zux. i just bought used total war empire, couldn't even get steam to work well enuf to load TW!
my input on all thes bug problems, steam zux. i just bought used total war empire, couldn't even get steam to work well enuf to load TW!
Civsassin
Immortal
I'm running the whole shebang on a Sony Viao with an i5 processor, and it runs great. It's a modest PC that cost around $800. Your choice, but CiV is a very good game that presents few problems (including Steam) on a moderate machine.
Or when they release DLL/SDK/whatever it's called...
I'm slightly confused here, hasn't the SDK already been released long time ago?
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Hmm, my complaints, and wished featuers
*Expanded Victory Conditions, especailly Dipolmatic Victory, it's so BOORING, all you have to do is ally yourself with e.g. +7 city states to win, which on easier difficulties.. is TOO EASY.
*Dynamic Era-Specific Leaderheads, i.e Leaderheads just like in Civ 3
*Apostoplic Palace and expanded U.N options, just like in Civ IV.
*Expanded Future Era!!
*Easier Scenarios
, I'm not that good, and the Scenarios kinda suck.
*Ability to earn achievements in MP games, it's not like we getting rewarded anyways (like people get points in XBox Live or whatever)
*Few Free DLCs or make all DLCs free!
*PROPER achievement progress!
*Ability to play Scenarios in HotSeat
*Ability to Denounce, and Make Friendships with human players in both Internet/Lan and Hotseat games
*Ability to actually SAVE games in Multiplayer via Internet/Lan.
*Maybe some optimization for game so it doesn't lag on my computer xD
*Add City-States that are Science focused! (giving science bonus, just like a Cultural City State would)
That's all I could think of
*Expanded Victory Conditions, especailly Dipolmatic Victory, it's so BOORING, all you have to do is ally yourself with e.g. +7 city states to win, which on easier difficulties.. is TOO EASY.
*Dynamic Era-Specific Leaderheads, i.e Leaderheads just like in Civ 3
*Apostoplic Palace and expanded U.N options, just like in Civ IV.
*Expanded Future Era!!
*Easier Scenarios
, I'm not that good, and the Scenarios kinda suck.*Ability to earn achievements in MP games, it's not like we getting rewarded anyways (like people get points in XBox Live or whatever)
*Few Free DLCs or make all DLCs free!
*PROPER achievement progress!
*Ability to play Scenarios in HotSeat
*Ability to Denounce, and Make Friendships with human players in both Internet/Lan and Hotseat games
*Ability to actually SAVE games in Multiplayer via Internet/Lan.
*Maybe some optimization for game so it doesn't lag on my computer xD
*Add City-States that are Science focused! (giving science bonus, just like a Cultural City State would)
That's all I could think of
KungCheops
Warlord
I'd love it if you were able to play hotseat with mods, shouldn't be especially hard.
uberyeager
Chieftain
I would love to see 2Kgames completely give up on Civ 5, and start developing Civ 6.
* When they do this, they would listen to all the feedback on Civ 5, and engage fans during the development of the game.
* Ideally, they would not rush the game out full of bugs with simplistic game-play.
* If 2Kgames wants to make a simplistic Civ game that is more "accessible" to a wider casual gamer audience, start a new Civ brand, making it clear to people that this is different.
* The lead designer, Jon Shafer, should be tarred and feathered. Or, Civ style, he should be sacrificed to "rush" development assuming the Slavery Civic.
I think the many hardcore Civ fans that previously supported the franchise, buying every previous game and expansion are willing to give 2Kgames another chance.
* When they do this, they would listen to all the feedback on Civ 5, and engage fans during the development of the game.
* Ideally, they would not rush the game out full of bugs with simplistic game-play.
* If 2Kgames wants to make a simplistic Civ game that is more "accessible" to a wider casual gamer audience, start a new Civ brand, making it clear to people that this is different.
* The lead designer, Jon Shafer, should be tarred and feathered. Or, Civ style, he should be sacrificed to "rush" development assuming the Slavery Civic.
I think the many hardcore Civ fans that previously supported the franchise, buying every previous game and expansion are willing to give 2Kgames another chance.
Similar threads
