I said the most FUNSomehow that formulation made me smile. If i ignore all problems with a game its allmost certainly the best game if i include the problems of the others in the comparison
Civ V - what do people think?
- Thread starter tharg
- Start date
DirtyFinger
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2008
- Messages
- 369
what bugs me most about civ5 is it's speed.
it's so bloody slow, scrolling is jerky and when jumping from one map location to another it sometimes takes a second for the game to load tile textures.
this is quite horrible.
and under directx 11 it gets noticably worse...
got a radeon hd 5850 btw, which isn't exactly low budget.
it's so bloody slow, scrolling is jerky and when jumping from one map location to another it sometimes takes a second for the game to load tile textures.
this is quite horrible.
and under directx 11 it gets noticably worse...
got a radeon hd 5850 btw, which isn't exactly low budget.
Humakty
Happy Goblin
The worst part of civ 5 graphic engine is minimal settings transforms the map into an indigest mass of pixels, making AC maps look pretty in comparison. Damn, I wasn't even able to identify plots, as colors seemed to be randomly distributed among the types of land. Black or green deserts, purple or black or green plains......
Thought of the day : buy a new PC, you vile poor...
Thought of the day : buy a new PC, you vile poor...
SolkaTruesilver
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 88
preach it, bruddah
slowcar
King
i'd pay another base game price for ffh@civ5.
Caius Marcius
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 4
Crap now, but lots of potential
Merddyn
Scholar of the Arcane
Honestly, I don't fully understand the complaints of everyone so far. Not in that I don't agree with them, but those people that think CiV is bad game or whatnot. It's just following the (due to the lack of points) establishing pattern of the series.
So far, with the civilization series, all the odd numbered games are... Poor by comparison to the previous (Doesn't quite work with the first game due to lack of a previous game). However, what they did have were new ideas and such to work with, which the even-numbered games refined and made great (usually with something else added).
For example from the first game, the whole system of everything was new, but especially combat was problematic. You had attack and defense stats, yes, but then there was the random number generator, which is really necessary, that decided combat, but due to the variation on it, you could quite literally have a fighter (aircraft) defeated by a phalanx (Spearman; one defense up from warrior). I personally had it happen myself. Then you go to Civilization 2, and they refined the combat system to make it work, by adding health, and firepower (Firepower being the amount of damage they did when they won an attack/defense roll).
Civilization 3 - It added quite a bit, but people as a general rule thought it was a terrible game (I personally rather liked it because of what all it added). It was the first game with experience other than "regular" and "veteran", the ability to draft units, great people (then only a great general; with expansion great scientist), strategic resources, culture (and civilization borders), unit withdrawl... Really quite a lot. Then you move on to Civilization 4... And it refines all of those features and it does wonderfully well! (Better because of FfH, but that's not the point; there was a fantasy mod for Civ 3 as well, it just wasn't as good.) Now, they removed one feature I liked: armies, but that doesn't really matter.
So, while CiV might not be that great by the standards of Civ 4 (Personally I rather like it, like I did with Civ 3; it's not perfect, but all the stuff that they added is really nice), based on the pattern of the series so far, it gives very good hope for Civilization 6.
So far, with the civilization series, all the odd numbered games are... Poor by comparison to the previous (Doesn't quite work with the first game due to lack of a previous game). However, what they did have were new ideas and such to work with, which the even-numbered games refined and made great (usually with something else added).
For example from the first game, the whole system of everything was new, but especially combat was problematic. You had attack and defense stats, yes, but then there was the random number generator, which is really necessary, that decided combat, but due to the variation on it, you could quite literally have a fighter (aircraft) defeated by a phalanx (Spearman; one defense up from warrior). I personally had it happen myself. Then you go to Civilization 2, and they refined the combat system to make it work, by adding health, and firepower (Firepower being the amount of damage they did when they won an attack/defense roll).
Civilization 3 - It added quite a bit, but people as a general rule thought it was a terrible game (I personally rather liked it because of what all it added). It was the first game with experience other than "regular" and "veteran", the ability to draft units, great people (then only a great general; with expansion great scientist), strategic resources, culture (and civilization borders), unit withdrawl... Really quite a lot. Then you move on to Civilization 4... And it refines all of those features and it does wonderfully well! (Better because of FfH, but that's not the point; there was a fantasy mod for Civ 3 as well, it just wasn't as good.) Now, they removed one feature I liked: armies, but that doesn't really matter.
So, while CiV might not be that great by the standards of Civ 4 (Personally I rather like it, like I did with Civ 3; it's not perfect, but all the stuff that they added is really nice), based on the pattern of the series so far, it gives very good hope for Civilization 6.
I don't think it's bad. There are some features I always wanted for Civ. Civs are a lot more unique in Civ5. A really good ranged attack system. No SoDs.
The only thing that bothers me is the AI. If it needs to get tremendous advantages to be competitive (even if I have nothing but Chu-Ko-Nus and the AI has Riflemen it manages to lose against my troops) something is wrong.
The only thing that bothers me is the AI. If it needs to get tremendous advantages to be competitive (even if I have nothing but Chu-Ko-Nus and the AI has Riflemen it manages to lose against my troops) something is wrong.
Pazyryk
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 3,584
The tactical AI needs a lot of improvement.
On the other hand, the strategic AI seems to be working at a level similar to (or perhaps better than) the very best AI-modded versions of civ4 (e.g., Better AI and Selphi's modmodding to FFH). It's always hard to compare because the handicapping is very different, but it seems to me (after looking at the handicap xml and knowing that some of these fields aren't even used in civ5) that the AI is keeping up with a lot fewer handicap bonuses. (It does fall down on war, but this is due to tactical failures rather than strategic.)
The biggest flaw I see in civ5 is that there is virtually no break on ICS. This needs to be fixed.
On the other hand, the strategic AI seems to be working at a level similar to (or perhaps better than) the very best AI-modded versions of civ4 (e.g., Better AI and Selphi's modmodding to FFH). It's always hard to compare because the handicapping is very different, but it seems to me (after looking at the handicap xml and knowing that some of these fields aren't even used in civ5) that the AI is keeping up with a lot fewer handicap bonuses. (It does fall down on war, but this is due to tactical failures rather than strategic.)
The biggest flaw I see in civ5 is that there is virtually no break on ICS. This needs to be fixed.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
I've pointed out the different AI levels in different threads to, essentially exactly as you did.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Oh, never meant to imply you weren't posting your own thoughts. 
Just meant that I agreed with you; The different levels of AI are way out of whack. The Strategic AI is great (and sometimes too good... Some games you get the one AI that runs away, takes over everything. It's awesome. I had a Rome that controlled all of Eurasia and Africa, on a huge map....), but the Tactical AI is not.
It's being improved, though.
Just meant that I agreed with you; The different levels of AI are way out of whack. The Strategic AI is great (and sometimes too good... Some games you get the one AI that runs away, takes over everything. It's awesome. I had a Rome that controlled all of Eurasia and Africa, on a huge map....), but the Tactical AI is not.
It's being improved, though.
Sephi
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,254
The Civ5 AI is a complete disaster.
Naval AI: you are lucky if they build a ship at all
diplo AI: looks all random what they do (although it's not really an AI issue but a design issue)
combat AI: I wouldn't be suprised if the AI finds a way to attack their own units. horrible broken
The AI does not understand the new win conditions at all. Even if they outtech you, they are hopeless as they don't know how to turn their advantage into a win. To spice it up, the Civ5 AI has even higher handicap advantages than Civ4 AI.
But I am not surprised about his mess at all. Good AI doesn't sell games and usually only very few resources are put into AI development. If the game weren't that dull and boring I'd probably make an AI mod just for the fun of it.
Naval AI: you are lucky if they build a ship at all
diplo AI: looks all random what they do (although it's not really an AI issue but a design issue)
combat AI: I wouldn't be suprised if the AI finds a way to attack their own units. horrible broken
The AI does not understand the new win conditions at all. Even if they outtech you, they are hopeless as they don't know how to turn their advantage into a win. To spice it up, the Civ5 AI has even higher handicap advantages than Civ4 AI.
But I am not surprised about his mess at all. Good AI doesn't sell games and usually only very few resources are put into AI development. If the game weren't that dull and boring I'd probably make an AI mod just for the fun of it.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
What do you think it'd take to make the game interesting? Generally speaking... but not too generally.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
And exactly how many games have you played?
The AI is quite well aware of how to win, and actively plans for it. It is this fact, actually, that causes most people's gripes about diplomacy; The AI is out to win, so if it is advantageous to them, they WILL declare on you. Diplomacy isn't random at all, it's just not very deep (which is something I dislike as well, frankly).
Combat AI is poor. There are also many upgrades to it that will be coming in the patch. The difference between the release version and the test version is pronounced; AI is far better tactically, particularly on the defensive.
And you may find the game dull; Many others find Civ5 far more engaging than (unmodded) Civ4 ever was, myself amongst them. It has it's issues, yes; But it also has far more potential than civ4 ever did.
DirtyFinger
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2008
- Messages
- 369
You know, that one got me thinking: Do people want an AI that plays to win or do people want an AI that emulates 'realistic' behaviour, e.g. an AI that doesn't play to win if it costs it your 'friendship'.
Or do people simply want an AI that provides the illusion of a challenge?
Similar threads
