PyrionFlax
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1
I think we all know that the AI is cack so let's skip that one since it's been done to death. The issues in this game extend beyond just one or two coding bugs or sliders. I think the issues are more fundamental.
Firstly, the lack of relegion:
this means it's much HARDER to get along with people. in Civ 4 sharing relegion meant you were generally friends until proven otherwise. yes, this also meant you had relegious rivals, but now, without even relegion to fall back on, the default position is that everyone hates you, not just those of different relegion. settling cities ANYWHERE near the AI (even if you cannot even see them yet) also builds hatred. as does having a weak military, or a bad economy.
essentially, this means the AI hates you and everyone around it pretty much from the outset. in every game i've played so far the AI is at war almost straight away with more than one person, even if that person is on the other side of the continent. this has a tremendously negative effect on the AI's general success. it's economy suffers, as does it's happiness. it doesn't build new cities because it's so busy making combat units. I think I've seen one AI settler anywhere near me so far. and because of this focus on early, costly war it ends up having warriors well after you've got horsemen and swordsmen.
worse still the AI will declare war against you, send no units at all because it cannot spare them, and then because it's economy is totally boned from all these wars, it desperately pleads for peace and gives you all it's money and luxuries. and this makes things even WORSE because now it's really unhappy and cannot spare the happiness to expand somewhere else.
but all these sub-effects stem from the fact that the AI thinks it needs to set up for war and nothing else: because it hates everyone near it, and sees no reason to do anything else. there are not enough ways to get along (relegion, civics, years of peace etc), and too many ways to piss people off. the fact that they will declare they are protecting pretty much every city state that smiles at them just means more reasons to go to war. the civs overvalue the very minor contribution that the city-states make, so it will go all out war against someone mean to the city states even if it means they enter a war they cannot win.
Secondly, and crucially, the fact that being successful in a war actually has a NEGATIVE effect on your civilisation.
If you steamroll an opponent with some masterful tactical warfare, you're left with, say, 3 cities that you can annex. and if you do? your empire will fall into total chaos. everyone is miserable, nobody builds anything or wants to populate anymore. this is beyond stupid. the penalties are SO great that only the very most successful civs should actually even attempt a war, but because of point 1, EVERYONE is trying to wage war. naturally this crippling effect means that most civs will suffer horribly from a war, whereas 1 guy will be ok and totally walk all over everyone else. you are better off razing EVERYTHING and building from scratch. pretty dumb, and totally not the way civ has worked in the past and given it's success I think a lot of people quite liked capturing cities instead of just razing everything everywhere. it certainly shouldn't be the default "correct" way to play. capturing cities has always been key to civ.
it doesn't make any sense to wage a war until your civ is streets ahead of everyone else and you control one of each of the luxury resources. this means that waging a war to catch up will actually leave you futher behind as you struggle to manage your happiness levels. the game should not punish success. a small nation that happens to do well and capture a large rival city is not going to be able to build on that success because it's happiness levels are going to plummet and totally murder it's entire civ economy. or else it might gain a puppet, which is of limited value since you cannot create units there.
THIRDLY the policies are fixed forever.
This is really silly. it's like saying that Egypt hasn't changed in 5000 years. or England. or ANY other country you care to mention. the civics choice in Civ 4 was perfect, why was it changed?
and FOURTHLY, some minor gripes that make me think that the game design and overall UI decision making process was flawed.
it's possible to just buy buildings and units from the get go, but I cannot spend money to rush production once I've started something. this means that if I want a granary RIGHT NOW, i can have it. but if I was to build 99% of a granary, no amount of money on Earth will let me finish it early using that 99% I already built. I either buy the whole granary, or have to build it from scratch. this is nonsensical and requires all kinds of leaps of logic to explain (some idiot fanboy can fill in this blank)
I have no idea why, but the fact you cannot easily save your "standard setup" has still not been added. I just want to play England, name myself Pyrion Flax, play on Terra etc. so why do I have to set that every time? it's a lack of care that I think extends throughout the game.
there should be a "regenerate map with same settings" button under options. just put one in. let me play the game my own way. if I start a game and I am on a tiny desert island, I personally will regenerate the map. like I did under Civ 4. why was this taken out? it was good, it saved time. it was my choice to use it.
the civilopedia is terrible. it doesn't even try to explain the game at all beyond some simple text that looks like a placeholder. for instance, what is this "pact of secrecy" that every AI player is obsessed with?
Firstly, the lack of relegion:
this means it's much HARDER to get along with people. in Civ 4 sharing relegion meant you were generally friends until proven otherwise. yes, this also meant you had relegious rivals, but now, without even relegion to fall back on, the default position is that everyone hates you, not just those of different relegion. settling cities ANYWHERE near the AI (even if you cannot even see them yet) also builds hatred. as does having a weak military, or a bad economy.
essentially, this means the AI hates you and everyone around it pretty much from the outset. in every game i've played so far the AI is at war almost straight away with more than one person, even if that person is on the other side of the continent. this has a tremendously negative effect on the AI's general success. it's economy suffers, as does it's happiness. it doesn't build new cities because it's so busy making combat units. I think I've seen one AI settler anywhere near me so far. and because of this focus on early, costly war it ends up having warriors well after you've got horsemen and swordsmen.
worse still the AI will declare war against you, send no units at all because it cannot spare them, and then because it's economy is totally boned from all these wars, it desperately pleads for peace and gives you all it's money and luxuries. and this makes things even WORSE because now it's really unhappy and cannot spare the happiness to expand somewhere else.
but all these sub-effects stem from the fact that the AI thinks it needs to set up for war and nothing else: because it hates everyone near it, and sees no reason to do anything else. there are not enough ways to get along (relegion, civics, years of peace etc), and too many ways to piss people off. the fact that they will declare they are protecting pretty much every city state that smiles at them just means more reasons to go to war. the civs overvalue the very minor contribution that the city-states make, so it will go all out war against someone mean to the city states even if it means they enter a war they cannot win.
Secondly, and crucially, the fact that being successful in a war actually has a NEGATIVE effect on your civilisation.
If you steamroll an opponent with some masterful tactical warfare, you're left with, say, 3 cities that you can annex. and if you do? your empire will fall into total chaos. everyone is miserable, nobody builds anything or wants to populate anymore. this is beyond stupid. the penalties are SO great that only the very most successful civs should actually even attempt a war, but because of point 1, EVERYONE is trying to wage war. naturally this crippling effect means that most civs will suffer horribly from a war, whereas 1 guy will be ok and totally walk all over everyone else. you are better off razing EVERYTHING and building from scratch. pretty dumb, and totally not the way civ has worked in the past and given it's success I think a lot of people quite liked capturing cities instead of just razing everything everywhere. it certainly shouldn't be the default "correct" way to play. capturing cities has always been key to civ.
it doesn't make any sense to wage a war until your civ is streets ahead of everyone else and you control one of each of the luxury resources. this means that waging a war to catch up will actually leave you futher behind as you struggle to manage your happiness levels. the game should not punish success. a small nation that happens to do well and capture a large rival city is not going to be able to build on that success because it's happiness levels are going to plummet and totally murder it's entire civ economy. or else it might gain a puppet, which is of limited value since you cannot create units there.
THIRDLY the policies are fixed forever.
This is really silly. it's like saying that Egypt hasn't changed in 5000 years. or England. or ANY other country you care to mention. the civics choice in Civ 4 was perfect, why was it changed?
and FOURTHLY, some minor gripes that make me think that the game design and overall UI decision making process was flawed.
it's possible to just buy buildings and units from the get go, but I cannot spend money to rush production once I've started something. this means that if I want a granary RIGHT NOW, i can have it. but if I was to build 99% of a granary, no amount of money on Earth will let me finish it early using that 99% I already built. I either buy the whole granary, or have to build it from scratch. this is nonsensical and requires all kinds of leaps of logic to explain (some idiot fanboy can fill in this blank)
I have no idea why, but the fact you cannot easily save your "standard setup" has still not been added. I just want to play England, name myself Pyrion Flax, play on Terra etc. so why do I have to set that every time? it's a lack of care that I think extends throughout the game.
there should be a "regenerate map with same settings" button under options. just put one in. let me play the game my own way. if I start a game and I am on a tiny desert island, I personally will regenerate the map. like I did under Civ 4. why was this taken out? it was good, it saved time. it was my choice to use it.
the civilopedia is terrible. it doesn't even try to explain the game at all beyond some simple text that looks like a placeholder. for instance, what is this "pact of secrecy" that every AI player is obsessed with?
