Civilization 5, is it worth playing?

[Tschuggi]

I play civ since the very first beginnings and have bought and played 5 as well and have to state that civ 4 with BTS is imho the best one. Why? Because of the mods. The modding comunity of civ 4 is huge, creative and has developed mods that make even vanilla civ 4 look like a Fiat Panda next to a Ferrari Testarossa. I tried civ 5 and liked 1UPT and the tactics, but got bored very fast. I play on deity and civ 5 is even on deity no match, the AI simply does not know how to handle any of the game-concepts. I tried some civ 5 mods (economy mod of Valkrionn is good!), but this is still a very boring corner compared to civ 4 modding comunity (hint: dll code release, or lua yourself). But I am sure there will come sth interesting.
So again: why civ 4? Because of mods and modmods like FFH, FFH 2, Wildmana, Master of Mana, RifE, ROM, RAF, RI and especially PAE IV (V)... and many many more.

The developpers could have learned so much from them... unit hardcaps, alignement, unit equipment, hero promotion paths, 3-6 upt, different city management, global yields, alignement, religion, diplomacy, revolution mechanics...

Atm I have no motivation to play more ciV games. IV is my way to go. And thanks for the modding comunity. Unpayed free-slaves and bug-hunters and problem-solvers and idea-givers for the developers, heros for me.

Edit: I forgot to say that I hate steam. Pure hate.

Greez,

Tschuggi

 

[tenkk]

Due to not having a laptop for two years and only getting one recently I wasnt able to buy the game till a week ago. I half expected it to be a steam game and wondered what that would mean for the modding community that made a half assed civ a great game. But having played all civ games as they released i couldnt hold off. I dont regret buying it so far. It feels like civ. Hell I was playing revolution on an itouch before this It is horrendous that religion was left out. And I am having all kinds of difficulties playing peoples maps from this forum. Gone are the days of just double clicking a map on the desktop and playing. I hate steam. Guess i am just resigned to it for life since its never gonna rewind.

 

[Aristos]

I play civ since the very first beginnings and have bought and played 5 as well and have to state that civ 4 with BTS is imho the best one. Why? Because of the mods. The modding comunity of civ 4 is huge, creative and has developed mods that make even vanilla civ 4 look like a Fiat Panda next to a Ferrari Testarossa. I tried civ 5 and liked 1UPT and the tactics, but got bored very fast. I play on deity and civ 5 is even on deity no match, the AI simply does not know how to handle any of the game-concepts. I tried some civ 5 mods (economy mod of Valkrionn is good!), but this is still a very boring corner compared to civ 4 modding comunity (hint: dll code release, or lua yourself). But I am sure there will come sth interesting.
So again: why civ 4? Because of mods and modmods like FFH, FFH 2, Wildmana, Master of Mana, RifE, ROM, RAF, RI and especially PAE IV (V)... and many many more.

The developpers could have learned so much from them... unit hardcaps, alignement, unit equipment, hero promotion paths, 3-6 upt, different city management, global yields, alignement, religion, diplomacy, revolution mechanics...

Atm I have no motivation to play more ciV games. IV is my way to go. And thanks for the modding comunity. Unpayed free-slaves and bug-hunters and problem-solvers and idea-givers for the developers, heros for me.

Edit: I forgot to say that I hate steam. Pure hate.

Greez,

Tschuggi

Did you try Legend of Revolutions? I always wanted to find something in between vanilla with BUG and BetterAI, and the heavily loaded ROM AND... RoM AND is a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but due to having so much "new", it's in constant balancing and it is damn hard to balance. Some days ago, I "discovered" LoR thanks to another civ5 Rebel here in these forums, and man I'm having a blast.

It has all I wanted without the heavy overload: BUG, BetterAI, UoP, Revolutions. Very good mod without overincreasing the features. You would probably like it.

Civilization 5? What is that?
Moderator Action: If you are not interested in civ5, but rather in civ4, then please post this in the civ4 forums.

 

[00konichiwa00]

It's OK for a couple of weeks until you get fed up with all the backstabbing.

I agree. I was very close with Greece and then for no reason they turned their back on me.

 

[dexters]

I agree. I was very close with Greece and then for no reason they turned their back on me.

Greece has high agression and is a high threat Civ. They can't be trusted to be your friend indefinately.

If they don't get wiped out by their early warmongering, they can be reliably counted to buy up all the CS, including yours and go for a diplo win.

You have to war and stop them eventually.

I suggest you play a few games to get a feel of each the AI Civs. you'll find the leaders are fairly consistent accross games ewith some variation due to an RNG roll and starting conditions, but over a few games, you'll learn who to trust as builders /staying out of your way, and those you will have to stop. Or you can check out Diplomacy by the numbers to view the data on aggression, but also on a myriad of other things, most of them things you can't observe directly, like how they develop their cities, their approach to diplomacy, approach to 'winning civs' , their willingness to forgive lies/broken word, and their truthworthiness

The Civ flavours are quite strong in this game, they are no longer generic placeholder Civs with some mild modifers.

 

[00konichiwa00]

the first time I played civ 5 I really hated it. went back to civ 4, but noticed it wasn't like before since there was a newer version. then tried civ 5 again and still didn't like it. played civ 4 for some time, but still had the same feeling of playing a old game (even though civ 4 is so much better, especially with the mods). recently started to enjoy civ 5, but it crashes after 700 turns. figured out I need a new computer and better computer (this one is 7 years old). but going to try civ 5 again with less civs (I played with 22 civs and maximum city-states), maybe the game won't crash then.
if there ever will be a civ 6, I hope they go back to civ 4, update the game, add stuff and maybe add some stuff from civ 3 which they didn't add in civ 4. I have noticed that games today have a lot more bugs than before. they simply release a unfinished game (for the same price) and let us customers beta-play it. civ 4 had very few bugs (at least for me), while civ 5 seems (with the DLC's) like unfinished beta game. I especially miss religions in civ 5 (not that I am religious) and beeing able to have a huge army (to be able to put them all in the city or in 1 tile).

 

[Glassmage]

i like civ5 more than civ4.

 

[00konichiwa00]

Greece has high agression and is a high threat Civ. They can't be trusted to be your friend indefinately.

If they don't get wiped out by their early warmongering, they can be reliably counted to buy up all the CS, including yours and go for a diplo win.

You have to war and stop them eventually.

I suggest you play a few games to get a feel of each the AI Civs. you'll find the leaders are fairly consistent accross games ewith some variation due to an RNG roll and starting conditions, but over a few games, you'll learn who to trust as builders /staying out of your way, and those you will have to stop. Or you can check out Diplomacy by the numbers to view the data on aggression, but also on a myriad of other things, most of them things you can't observe directly, like how they develop their cities, their approach to diplomacy, approach to 'winning civs' , their willingness to forgive lies/broken word, and their truthworthiness

The Civ flavours are quite strong in this game, they are no longer generic placeholder Civs with some mild modifers.

I'll go for kill then, since my army are way larger than theirs. but I will have to wait til I have bought a new computer :-( my computer crash after (around) 700 turns.

 

[ElephantRider]

A good player with a decent amount of $$$ would always buy the DLC.

Not true at all.

 

[sstger]

Mathematical Formula is the key

Take the price of the game divided by the number of hours you spent playing with

Actually, I paid about 50$ and played near 1000 hours (at least this what steam show, but i sometimes let the game running couple of hours without playing, lets says that about 150 hours of that time must not be count), so we have 50$/850h= 0,05$ for every hour.

Even if I reduce the number of hours played by a quarter (as I am waiting most of the late game, and waiting is not funny) its mean 50$/640h= 0,07$ for every hour.

Is it worth playing? For me, absolutely. But what make civ 5 very worth playing, is the mp part of the game (especially since the latest patch), because really the ai suck and the diplomacy at single player is just very awful and unviable.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Civ V has diplomacy. The AI diplomacy is modeled after north Korea and other irrational third world dictatorships leading to very realistic diplomacy i.e. it is exactly like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Aziroshin]

To Bamboocha: Aside from Fall from Heaven II, which is astoundingly awesome, you might want to try "Rise of Mankind - a New Dawn" as well.
Regarding the stacking issue, I guess it may be major beef for players which are mainly drawn to the martial aspects of the game, just as the purported (I have not played Civilization V (yet?)) tilt towards that aspect in Civilization V may prove to be beef for people like me which weigh the other aspects of the game especially heavily.

As said, I have not played Civilization V so far. An important reason for that is that my very limited game-budget was simply over-bent already when it was released. I also figured that the vanilla game likely wouldn't sport the detail and vastness Civilization-games usually feature after a few expansions and mods, especially the latter.

I've read someone writing about how a game wasn't necessarily more complex just because it has more stuff, standing up against claims of Civilization IV being more complex than Civilization V. Now, the core here is reddundancy and how you define it. If you look at the game from a Tetris-perspective, that might be an accurate observation. However if, like me, your default stance towards the Civilization franchise targets its simulation aspects, the definition of what is reddundant and what isn't becomes quite different. This is also a topic which, for me, has haunted the Civilization series ever since. However, as it basically is a virtual board game and not a simulation game, that's not something that is ever going to really change, I purport.

It is also this stance which is the reason for major beef I am having with how diplomacy and inter-cultural relations are handled in Civilization. Even in Civilization IV, it is possible for AI-Civilizations to declare war upon each other or the player-Civ(s) for no apparent reason, which, for people which "abuse" Civilization as a simulation game, is a considerable dent in the civ-experience. Nontheless, the franchise is nice enough for this dent not to be of critical nature.

When reading how diplomacy is de-facto non-existant in Civilization V and how things have gotten more linear, less flexible and complex (from a simulation perspective), the impression that Civilization will never improve on its simulative aspects hardens.

And, yes, I am one of the few (I have never met any one else like it, to be exact) that actually enjoy playing the game without any victory conditions whatsoever.

 

[apocalypse105]

Greece has high agression and is a high threat Civ. They can't be trusted to be your friend indefinately.

If they don't get wiped out by their early warmongering, they can be reliably counted to buy up all the CS, including yours and go for a diplo win.

You have to war and stop them eventually.

I suggest you play a few games to get a feel of each the AI Civs. you'll find the leaders are fairly consistent accross games ewith some variation due to an RNG roll and starting conditions, but over a few games, you'll learn who to trust as builders /staying out of your way, and those you will have to stop. Or you can check out Diplomacy by the numbers to view the data on aggression, but also on a myriad of other things, most of them things you can't observe directly, like how they develop their cities, their approach to diplomacy, approach to 'winning civs' , their willingness to forgive lies/broken word, and their truthworthiness

The Civ flavours are quite strong in this game, they are no longer generic placeholder Civs with some mild modifers.

Negatif CIv 5 AI doesn't know how to make use of his flavors and every AI gives war a higher flavor because it makes his war decission on numbers not flavors do i like him? AM i loyal?

It is based on numbers if the army is weaker/ have not much gold or happiness and so on declare (wich is usally on higher difficulty)

 

[Talim [own]]

I dont go on this forum a lot but everytime I go, there's always a thread with a title similar to this on the first page...

 

[Geddy]

If you want to see if Civ V is worth playing, check out how many thread replies, mods and discussions take place in the Civ 4 forum compared to V.

 

[LeHam]

To be honest, CiV is a good game to play once in a while, and had some interesting new mechanics. I really, really, REALLY wish 1UPT worked better, but it's really hard to program an AI that can handle that amount of strategy. If you want an example look at the Total War series. It has strategy very much like CiV but current AI just cannot compete with a human.

However, CivIV is far and away the best. V is way more simplified than IV--for example, instead of cities having health and happiness and maintenance to control growth, there's just "Global Happiness." Don't fix what ain't broke! The utter simplicity is what keeps me from really enjoying CiV

 

[cman2010]

Civ V has diplomacy. The AI diplomacy is modeled after north Korea and other irrational third world dictatorships leading to very realistic diplomacy i.e. it is exactly like talking to a brick wall.

best post ever dead on.

 

[waynester10]

I started playing Civilization in Civ IV. There are lots of ways that Civ IV worked better than Civ 5 to me. Religions, diplomacy, the AI of battle, like many have said here. But, I never liked infinite stacks of doom in Civ 4. To me that was just too unrealistic. So Civ 5 greatly improved mainly graphics, but has always been something where strengths of the prior version were lost. I miss technology trading for instance. So you have to get used to some things in Civ 5. If you can get used to much of it, it's fun. I have alternated between being so frustrated that I just about quit, to liking it. The patches have helped it overall. But in every patch there are little things you won't like. My big gripe has been that mods have seemed to destabilize the game. I'm now playing with the latest patch and I'll just have to see if its more stable now. I think the mods have really helped a lot with a lot of the issues of the game, as long as the game doesn't hang. I've upgraded my computer 3 or 4 times since getting Civ 5. I'll tell you one thing, you need a lot of computer to run it. It's not worth playing if you don't have a good enough PC. I'm now running it on Win7 64 bit with 8 MB of RAM. I hope it will be more stable and not hang on "Please wait." Civ 5 has improved a lot and is fun but sometimes frustrating.

 

[KaneofEgypt]

All of the mods that they put out for civ4 are simply wonderful. In fact, I got Beyond the Sword, and went for two days and then tried a mod. I have to say that History Rewritten is fantastic. It is not too complicated, not too simple, and it make sense. I don't even play BtS now.

 

[Samuil]

Yes its worth playing