[CIV 5 Issues] - The complete list

[elprofesor]

That's a bit harsh

They obviously don't take into consideration the fact that you are human, and thus will win a war even with slightly worse military strength, or completely annihilate their army, given a chokepoint and a citadel. Other than that, they would usually have good odds of winning if their tactics were as good as that of a human.
There's also the thing that they sometimes declare war on you because they hate you infinitely, or because they know they have lost. That's a different (and recurrent) subject, that I personally find reasonable, not a problem per se (although obviously a nuisance).

I just find that the AI doesn't understand protection pacts at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem with protection pacts: it expires as soon as one DOW has been done. Which may seem like a good idea, but isn't when 2 civs declare war the same turn, and your partner only declares war on the feeble one.

And about how they miscalculate PPs: if civ A won't declare on civ B (and viceversa) because their military power is too close to each other, and you are a puny cultural civ (just tested), go see your best buddy among them, sign a PP (easy if you yourself have never been denounced, etc), and piss the other one (don't settle near me! gimme that! and I denounce you!), he will DOW you (you are a puny cultural civ, remember? he probably covets your lands, and doesn't care about you holding your breath).

On a side note, if have just seen England settle a city within 3 tiles of another in an archipelago map (should be impossible...?).
I also had a minor minimap problem in two games: the cities of some civs didn't appear, only their cultural borders. It has only happened for standard games (I own a laptop, so I try to play smaller games), and fixed itself after reloading.

On a completely aside note, it would be "really cool" if we could access the civilopedia from the main menu. I guess it has been asked before, but seriously, wouldn't that be awesome? (sorry for the thinly veiled critic, but it really bothers me that I have to load the game AND a game to check it; especially when I want to recheck the special abilities of some UU before chosing a leader: why isn't there their info summary, like during the leader loading screen?)

And a last note: barbarian ships seem to ignore improved sea spots post-patch, which renders them next to harmless (you can't work tiles within 2 hexes of them, but still...)

PS: sorry for my parentheses addiction.

 

[Krieger66]

I don't really think desperation attacks on the player when he is winning is a great feature:
1) What if your trying for a peaceful victory type(which are admittantly nigh impossible in Civ V) and you suddenly are forced into wiping out a civ and their CSs or to let them pester you?
2)Its not generally fun to be kamakazied by weak ai civs.

I think that would be a good point to expand on, I'd even like to see permanent alliances and vassal states being added in the future(and hope the ai's are made less touchy and actually will listen to your "don't settle near us" option if its reasonable or you are a threat to them; I mean whats the point of it right now besides as a space filler, if it is never accepted and just pisces the ai off?).

 

[Civsassin]

On a side note, if have just seen England settle a city within 3 tiles of another in an archipelago map (should be impossible...?).

The three hex between cities restriction only applies to cities separated by land, not by water alone.

 

[elprofesor]

Oh, that's definitely something handy to know. The three hex rule only applies to cities connected by land within three hexes to each other, or only to cities whose connection by land is shorter than three hexes? That is, can I settle a city within 3 hexes of another if it is connected by land, but not directly (say, on both sides of a amall bay)?

 

[Civsassin]

Oh, that's definitely something handy to know. The three hex rule only applies to cities connected by land within three hexes to each other, or only to cities whose connection by land is shorter than three hexes? That is, can I settle a city within 3 hexes of another if it is connected by land, but not directly (say, on both sides of a amall bay)?

The three hex rule only applies on contiguous land masses. It does not apply between different land masses, like islands on a pangea map.

 

[elprofesor]

Another bug: when capturing an enemy civilian, Zone of Control doesn't apply: if unit A starts next to both enemy unit B and enemy civilian unit C, which are also adjacent to each other, unit A can capture C and still keep moving afterwards (if there wasn't a civilian in that hex to start of, moving there should end your movement).

 

[Krieger66]

Another bug: when capturing an enemy civilian, Zone of Control doesn't apply: if unit A starts next to both enemy unit B and enemy civilian unit C, which are also adjacent to each other, unit A can capture C and still keep moving afterwards.

Has it been ruled out as a player handicap for higher difficulties?

p.s. I'm not sure if anyone is keeping a list of these bugs anymore, so some people here may want to look for a newer/more active bug thread(if there is one).

 

[1stcontact2035]

The fact that in Civ5 I can have a Modern Armor go up against a brute and under every outcome the modern armor will have at least some damage from the brute, and its not like its insignificant damage, we're talking a whole hitpoint here, one out of a measly ten. So, what this means is if the modern armor went up against ten brutes, it would be guaranteed of getting killed. I don't see why a modern armor couldn't go up against a thousand brutes and come out unscathed, but that's just me. Of course, this is a game, and it has to be playable... but on that note, having a combat system where you automatically take damage each time in combat regardless of how outmatched or outgunned your opponent is, or how well the odds are in your favor, seems very unfair, and it's one of those things that seems to be keeping Civ5 from being a good conquest/domination game.

Also, embarking units in Civ5 move WAY TOO SLOW. On a large size map with continents, etc., I can embark a settler to try and colonize another continent and because my settler moves, at best, 4 moves per turn, if my settler is not directly across from the tile I'm settling it will take so long to move across the ocean and to settle on another continent (let alone move up the coast) that its unlikely the map will be anywhere near completely settled by me or the AI by the time the game ends. It's just too hard to cross oceans. It's easy to get into the water, but it takes way too long to get across oceans.

Probably not a complaint but something I've been wanting to see in a Civ game since Civ3, is for at least air and naval units some tweaking of their ranges and moves to reflect the size of the map. Like a huge map shouldn't have naval units that take 20 turns to get from one end of the world to the other in late game, and air units should be able to cross a continent the same as in any size map, reflective of its size. But that's something I'd "like" to see in any given Civ and have yet to see it. The only mod work I've ever done (never really got off the ground, I admit) was something along those lines. Bit of a pet peeve of mine.

I think 1UPT would be OK if it could be modified to have one each of Ranged, Artillery, and Melee on the same tile at once. This would make for more interesting combat without really impacting what the game was getting at, and really this is what "really" happens in combat, you get ranged, Artillery, and Melee fighting side by side. Maybe even have Armor and Helicopter be separate catagories and let them be stationed on the same tile too (some sort of modern equivalent??)

1stcontact2035

 

[elprofesor]

I recently liberated a city state from India, and it raised my "warmonger status" (another leader started showing the "they think you are a belligerent threat" diplo penalty right after that). IMHO, this kind of military action shouldn't make relationships with other nations worse, more like the opposite.

 

[Hasire]

A Chonuko with logistics can only fire twice.

 

[Krieger66]

A Chonuko with logistics can only fire twice.

You do know this is a civ game and not a mexican take-out resturant right?

 

[Galaras]

CANALS

-Tile improvement. It seems obviouse to me that this should be an option to navigate boats to inland cities or accross a stretch of land to another coast.

- The invention and contrcution of cannals has shaped out world!!! Wars where fought over them (ex: Napoleon in Egypt) and they where a major contribution to the industrial revolution and trade!!

- Rivers should be (to a certain extent) boat worthy.


DIPLOMACY:

Infuriating. I just do not get it:

1. The AI seems so basic and the options are so limited. I would have thought that by now this would have been improved but it seems to me that it is considered very low priority.

2. This denouncing buisness is stupid. Ex: Someone goes to war against me and i get denounced but if someone declares war on me I cannot denounce them.

3. What dictates decision making? Why is it that sometimes I cannot trade a luxuary for less then the totality of my resources for no apprent reason!

4. When I am talking to the AI I do not know what alliances, treaties he has with anyone else.

5. Can agreement not be made indefinate/conditional? Why peace for only 10 turns or friendship for limtied time? Once these expire should this not promte additional agreements to be made? i.e. I go to peace with a player and then it expires. Am I at war? should we not agree to a certain position with the other player?

CITY STATES

1. City states want to go to war against each other all the time and then get stuck like this. I can be allied with two citiy states that have an ongoing dipute that can only be resolved by destrying one or the other!!! This is stupid.

2. I cannot donate settler units to city states (or even cities). Surely the possible expansion of city states would give the game play a whole new level. I could even envisage giving city states a city or two!! I do not believe they should be proactive about this (i.e. cannot creat settlers).

3. Also they seem to be competly useless at fighting. Surely if I give units to a city state then it should be capable of wagin active war on another city state or civ.

RELIGION & CULTURE

These modes are amazing in CIV IV:

1. Why has religion disapeared?

2. Why do border expansions not chalenge one another anymore? I could imagine a diplomatic agreement that would freeze borders/negotiate on border/etc.

 

[Krieger66]

CITY STATES

1. City states want to go to war against each other all the time and then get stuck like this. I can be allied with two citiy states that have an ongoing dipute that can only be resolved by destrying one or the other!!! This is stupid.

2. I cannot donate settler units to city states (or even cities). Surely the possible expansion of city states would give the game play a whole new level. I could even envisage giving city states a city or two!! I do not believe they should be proactive about this (i.e. cannot creat settlers).

3. Also they seem to be competly useless at fighting. Surely if I give units to a city state then it should be capable of wagin active war on another city state or civ.

1. They should actually go to peace if their both allied with you...if they don't it's a definite bug.

2. The game actually actively fights against this; one CS I was allied with captured a city of a civ I was at war with. I thought they would keep it but they just ended up razing 3 turns later. I'm reasonably certain the designers/developers don't want CSs to get more cities.

3.They don't really have a reason, they can't expand so they basically just keep their units to defend their city or attack nearby enemy cities/units(which they do reasonably well considering how the AI players handle wars).

Just a few of my thoughts.

 

[Libertarian]

It would be nice to be able to press the escape key to cancel a right-click unit movement.

Instead, you have to wend and wind your way all the way back to the original hex and let up — which can be tedious for a long movement — else find an impossible move (like mountain or snow) and drop there, which isn't always handy.

(Yes, I know I can press "M" instead, and then press "M" again to cancel, but since right-click IS an optional way to move, it too should be cancellable.)

Thanks.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

The Mac OS X version doesn't have the 'Mods' option in the main menu.

 

[apocalypse105]

CANALS

The AI seems so basic and the options are so limited. I would have thought that by now this would have been improved but it seems to me that it is considered very low priority.

.

Well thats because they want it to be like that.The AI in civ 5 is programmed to win.
LIke other players said here it plays like a huma player. Result: No diplomacy.

This is just like other strategy games like rise of nations(real time strategy but still) The AI is programmed to win their is a diplomacy option but it doenst mean a lot because the AI is programmed to win.


I dont thinx it is a good idea to make The AI wants to win in a game like civilization.. Because you need diplomacy in this kind of game.

 

[thadian]

Very annoying that when i exit a game from a mod to reload my start i have to click mods again. shouldn't it take me to the last place i was in the main menu or give me the choice?

Also i hate how units go obselete so fast. it seems by the time i have 8 modern, contemporary troops, they all need to be upgraded right away to maintain unit parity.


Another problem is removing specialist slot from library etc. seriously.


Also, at above post:


It is good the AI actually wants to win and not just go out with a bang - but in a strategy game with players, diplomacy can stave off wars and choices can be made to add tension. When you want to win "group games" like Settlers of Catan, Axis and Alies or Risk, you have to talk your opponents into mistakes, exploit bad plays, convince one player that another is a threat all while minimizing your own threat appearance. The problem is the AI is not programmed to be "responsive" to anything.

Either it likes me or doesn't based on a lot of strange things and there is no dialogue to convince Alexander that Darius is a bigger threat than me. It might be better if there were a diplomacy minigame or something to convince the AI that you are indeed correct or incorrect. Remember "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" series? Sometimes you have to debate cao cao if you want him to invade Sun Ce.

Diplomacy shouldn't just be limited to hardlines but the AI needs to be influencable.

If i am playing a group game with 6 players, it is unlikely (unless they are a team or something) they will all behave in a very antisocial way, making decisions that doesn't further diplomacy.


Here is an example: If Mongol wants to take out Alexander - he should try to start a Persia/Greek war to knock Alex out when the time is correct to do so.

 

[KungCheops]

I think technology moves way too fast, you don't have time to construct any buildings before they're useless, that should be slowed down a bit. Also, isn't it kind of strange that in the beginning it takes a worker several hundred years to build a farm...

 

[thadian]

Another thing:

I hate it when the AI offers me 8 cities in surrender but i can't hotkey out of the gump to examine the cities before saying yes or no or negotiating.

And when i try to "examine a city first" it "annexes" and gives me no option to puppet the city.

 

[thadian]

The civlopedia gives outdated, false information on social policies.