Civ V - what do people think?

[tharg]

I can find three threads on Elemental, but none on Civ V. So what do people think?

It seems a move sideways from Civ IV. Maybe some improvements, but the game does not seem as mature as Civ IV BTS.

I think the biggest change for FFH perspective is the removal of religion. Maybe religion can be modded back, or maybe it will be incorporated in a subsequent supplement.

As a replacement they have introduced social policies. These feel a little artificial, but could be used to good effect in FFH.

One social policy for each civ, to allow timed introduction of each civilizations' traits. So the first Ljosalfar trat might be treating forests as roads, then later ones gaining various benefits from forests.
Then a social policy for each religion, unlocked by the appropriate tech.
Plus the more normal empire management policies.

The combat has completely changed, but I personally don't think this matters much. Superficial heroes, heroins and magic empowered units could work much the same way. I don't know what modding difference would be involved though?

 

[EugeneStyles]

I can find three threads on Elemental, but none on Civ V. So what do people think?

Did you check here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=385

 

[Jarrema]

IMO a great thing that ciV brings is new combat system, Rest is not as good, often worse than in cIV.
As for FfH for ciV, I remember anouncements that there would not be thing like that

 

[Copper Golem]

Who cares? I have played only 2-3 games in vanilla and bought BTS only because of FFH, didn't played vanilla BTS at all.

 

[Lord Tirian]

One social policy for each civ, to allow timed introduction of each civilizations' traits. So the first Ljosalfar trat might be treating forests as roads, then later ones gaining various benefits from forests.

Actually, I think the social policy system is a pretty good fit for the FfH2 theme - in fantasy, nations rarely change massively in one sweeping revolution (i.e. big civic change), but they're more static and changed bit by bit. Social policies, I think, simulate that a lot better. Not to mention that the tree-like level-up structure just feels very fantasy RPG-ish.

The combat has completely changed, but I personally don't think this matters much. Superficial heroes, heroins and magic empowered units could work much the same way.

Similarly combat, the tactics become much more important, giving the game more of a "local" or "frontier" feel - again, very in line with fantasy in general.

Once the modding tools are all out, I'd reckon Civ5 would be a very good basis for FfH-style mods in terms of "fantasy feel".

Cheers, LT.

 

[benana]

Actually, I think the social policy system is a pretty good fit for the FfH2 theme - in fantasy, nations rarely change massively in one sweeping revolution (i.e. big civic change), but they're more static and changed bit by bit. Social policies, I think, simulate that a lot better. Not to mention that the tree-like level-up structure just feels very fantasy RPG-ish.
Similarly combat, the tactics become much more important, giving the game more of a "local" or "frontier" feel - again, very in line with fantasy in general.

Once the modding tools are all out, I'd reckon Civ5 would be a very good basis for FfH-style mods in terms of "fantasy feel".

Cheers, LT.

Civ 5's combat system is much more tactical now. This is a nice change from the perspective of individual battles, but it really shifts the feel; gone are the clashes of huge armies (and if you do have a huge army, moving it is a heck of a lot less fun), and individual units seem to feel less invincible now (though that was always more so in vanilla than FFH anyway).

I find myself missing the huge armies, even though I never really used SOD's myself. I'm sure someone will mod them back in, though, one way or another.

 

[Pickly]

Kael did release an "unlimited stack size" mod quite quickly, using an XML change, so modding to allow larger armies seems that it would be quite simple.

 

[Jarrema]

It would be an interesting thing if heroes could be created as unique versions of great generals, each one with its own benefits

 

[Jabie]

What, aside from ideas, can be ported backwards to Civ IV (and by extension the FfH mods)? e.g. Is it possible to steal the graphics for Spearmen?

 

[Folket]

I really like civ 5. Two things I would like to change.

-33% defence in open makes it impossible to have units in the open terrain and if you have that the person who jumps the gun will kill off half the opponent army in one turn. It does not make any sense to me. The attacker already got the advantage of deciding where to attack, often flanking bonus as well. In all it makes armies very fragile.

Maintenance of buildings. This seems to just make you not improve your cities which I feel is wrong. Especially now when money is so useful you do not want to loose any of it. Wining a game on immortal now and I do not seem to build more then four building in my cities.

And one improvement, the tactical AI need to be revamped. At the moment it does nothing right. The computer seems to have a good grasp on the big picture but suicides units all the time.

Now I enjoy civ 5 better then BTS but if the tactical AI get fixed it will be an immense improvement.

 

[DirtyFinger]

i don't like the embarkment mechanics that let every land unit cross the sea without the need for transports. on the other hand, I never liked building transports in Civ IV, so I guess it's just a matter of we-never-did-it-that-way.

but honestly, right now it seems a bit ... boring. and slow.

 

[jprc]

I bought 2 games of Civ 5.
I was wrong...

I thought I was going to forget Civ 4 and as a consequence, FFH.
I was wrong.

I find Civ 5 tasty like water after a rain.

I have decided to uninstall Civ 5 (and the ugly Steam !!!!), and re-install Civ4/BTS.
And I have decided to play again FFH.

and suddenly, I FEEL GOOD !!!!!


does it answer your question Tharg?

 

[SolkaTruesilver]

Civ V is a great game that is, for the moment, underachieved.

There is so much potential for a very deep, very strong and interesting strategy game, because the game has such incredibly quality bases. The organic city development, the strategic ressource nodes, the 1-unit per tile, etc…

A but there are a few strong VERY BAD POINTS that are just overshadowing, because right now, the game is underachieving. If they had propely developped the new introduced ideas, we wouldn’t care that much about the almost nil diplomatic system, and the other bad elements.

But I am confident the game will be a classic, and will revolutionnise the Civ genre. Ideas:

1- Luxury Ressource nodes. Rather than have just “Gold = 5 happiness and losing the spare gold, have Luxury ressource be nodes like strategic ressource, and provide happiness that way: 1 Luxury Ressource A = +1 happiness. 3 Luxury Ressource A = +2 Happiness. 6 Luxury Ressource A = +3 happiness. etc.. That way, it’s better to have 3 ressource of A and 3 of B (+2 happiness each) than 6 of A. That kind of design would fit nicely with the gameplay mechanics about large empires, as a large empire would hold many nodes of the same ressource, and still would be able to scale the proper happiness. You could also trade ressources for quantities, etc… Also, you could go and say that Tile Improvement increase the quantity of ressource gathered there, rather than simply allowing you to mine the ressource. Sugar provides you with a natural 2 Sugar, while Sugar Plantation increases it by +4.

2) Military deployment. with the city able to defend itself, why not able to deploy military units anywhere in the producing city’s territory? That way, you could muster troop at the right location, and not have to worry about putting cities near the sea, as long as the cultural border extend all the way to the sea, you can still deploy boats there.

3) No arbitrary limit on a city’s reach radius. Why is there a 3-tile limits? What if I want my cultural border to extend exclusively south, because I’m right on the border of the desert? Just make balancing mechanics that makes it costlier and costlier to develop farther and farther. It’s just so goddarned annoying to realise the Wine ressource just outside of your capital’s reach, but at the tip of a peninsula, making it IMPOSSIBLE to reach it.

4) City states diplomacy. Right now, it’s primitive, it’s clunky. How about an option of “giving X gold/turn to city-state”? With a base value of x. When you are “neutral” with the city-state, it cost you x gold/turn to increase 1 relation. When you reach “friend” status, it’s gonna cost you x just to MAINTAIN relationships, and an additional x to increase it an additional 1 relation/turn. When you reach “allied”, it cost 2x just to maintain your relation.

However, circumstances modifiers would apply to x. helped them in a war? -30% to x. Given them units? -5%/units. Them being connected to your trade network? -25%. You attacking other city-states? +10%/attacked, +15%/conquered city-states. Etc… etc…

5) Food ressource node. they really dropped the ball on that one. Rather than have food ressources being a simple (and stupid) + foor on the tile, again, keep the Node concept. Make a Deer ressource to be a 4-deers node, which is going to provide +1 food for 1 ressources, +2 food for 3 ressources, ec.. To a single city. Better spread ressources across your empire for better efficiency, but it would be possible to trade for it, or maybe focus it entirely on your capital?

6) Allow some flexibility regarding multiple troops per tile. For example, a Great General would allow an additional trooper in the same tile. I can’t think of example, but make some special occasion where it’s possible to combine units for defensive purposes? Putting a limit of 1 unit/tile mean that it should be possible to break that limit for additional strategic value and pure FUN!!!

As I said, the game has a lot of potential right now. It IS a good game, it’s just could be AWEOME.

 

[Valkrionn]

I'm planning something like #5 for my mod, actually.

 

[Fafnir13]

...(and the ugly Steam !!!!)...

I didn't carefully read the fine print on the back of the box when buying it and was very unhappy to see the steam requirement. Steam pisses me off.

Playing a game as the Germans (probably cause I'm reading a book on the thirty year war right now). I'm liking some of the new things, but others are making me scratch my head.
Overall empire management seems simpler via making it more generalized. I haven't found any sliders, so I guess they don't exist??? I like how "civics" are implemented as a level up tree. Makes me feel like I'm leveling up my civ. Makes playing for culture more fun, too. Dealing with happiness on a national level is an interesting change. It greatly reduces city micro as I no longer have to do "happy cap checks" every other turn. It does handle conquering cities rather oddly.
Conquering a city makes your civ more unhappy if you annex it instead of running it as a puppet state. I don't know if this unhappiness goes away over time yet. This change feels inaccurate to real history. Conquering empires, when successful, tend to be rather satisfied with the plunder and glory. The conquered certainly don't like it, but that would be a local problem that could get worse or better depending on treatment and other factors.
That's at least one point where the generalized happiness system hurts.

I want to mention the combat, but I have to go to work soon. I'll post my thoughts on that later.

 

[Valkrionn]

The extra unhappiness from conquering cities goes away if you build a courthouse in the city.

As for the sliders: Nope, they've been removed. Science, Culture, and Gold are all separate from one another, which I'm okay with; The sliders were just extra micro to let you feel like you did something each turn, really.

Of course, Civ5 needs new micro to accomplish that now, as that's one of the biggest complaints: Not as much is happening on any one turn.

 

[DaveGold]

I don't think CIV 5 is a bad game and it provides simpler interface and less micromanagement. It could appeal to a wider audience but give less repeated play.

My complaint would be that the simplified buildings lack variety. The simplified units and promotions lack variety. This means the technologies that bring new buildings or new units are not interesting. There are very few bonuses for reaching a technology before an opponent so it doesn't feel as if there is a tech race. Military strategy doesn't seem to change much. Policies replace civics and are always added incrementally. This means that a policy advantage is with you all game but you don't get any opportunities to radically change your nation.

This all results in the game lacking impetus and dynamics. There isn't a feeling of progress at any time, which compares badly to the CIV4 tech rush through nationalism, liberalism, gunpowder, astronomy, etc which radically alters the game. The iron age feels much like the renaissance.

 

[Dumanios]

I think that Civ V is an OK game that could use improvement.

Graphics: I feel that the graphics are, for the most part, not much different from Civ IV. The obvious exception being leaders.

Soundtrack: The music is actually quite good, especially the war music, especially Catherine's and Darius'.

Replayability: I haven't finished a game yet (blame Sim City 4 and School), but conquering minor nations is something of a pleasure.

Balance: In particular, Japan's UA should probably be toned down. As should "Yor unit has found advanced weapons" which resulted in Scout -> Archer -> Crossbowman -> Rifleman before 1000BC. The Rifleman is able to kill anything that opposes him and has conquered Scotland and Vietnam alone(City-States).

 

[Keeper_GFA]

3) No arbitrary limit on a city’s reach radius. Why is there a 3-tile limits?

I agree with what Solka said, but to add that while your city can only work a 3 tile radius, it will continue to expand it's cultural borders out to a 5 tile radius. I still don't think the arbitrary limit is good though. Especially when playing a one-city challenge.

"Yor unit has found advanced weapons" which resulted in Scout -> Archer -> Crossbowman -> Rifleman before 1000BC.

This has happened to me as well. Makes for game over very quickly.

 

[SolkaTruesilver]

My complaint would be that the simplified buildings lack variety. The simplified units and promotions lack variety. This means the technologies that bring new buildings or new units are not interesting. There are very few bonuses for reaching a technology before an opponent so it doesn't feel as if there is a tech race. Military strategy doesn't seem to change much. Policies replace civics and are always added incrementally. This means that a policy advantage is with you all game but you don't get any opportunities to radically change your nation.

I think that, like myself, you have been extremely spoiled by Fall From Heaven's incredibly replay and diversity.

Which means it's just an additional reason I want a FFH Civ 5 mod.