Civilization 5, is it worth playing?

[jbevermore]

I find it amusing that everyone who hates CiV AI likes to quote Civ4 as the gold standard. It really wasn't, give a few techs and share a religion to gurantee close buddies for 4000 years.

Diplomacy has got to be the hardest part of the game to code. Granted it was just flat unacceptable on release (actually most of the game was), but I honestly think people dislike the new system because they can't turn everyone into diplomatic puppet states like they used to be able to.

 

[Becomedeath]

Isn't this like asking someone you don't know if you like strawberries?

Get it, play it, decide. Simples

 

[LegionSteve]

Becomedeath is right, the only way you will know if you like it, is to play it yourself.

Here's my opinion anyway for what it's worth: Yes it is definitely worth playing with Thal's VEM mod. Without VEM, not so much.

While some people hate the diplomacy in Civ 5, I really like it. Of course it could still use some work, to stop things like this happening: Washington Fail
(I think that particular problem is one of presentation - the AI leader displaying a greeting that is not appropriate to the situation - rather than anything broken in the underlying mechanics.)

Another thing I have tried recently, instead of increasing the difficulty level (carpet of doom, urgh) play with house rules, for example:
- no giving money to city states
- no selling open borders for cash
I found this both more challenging and more fun.

I still really really hate the user interface and I hope someone makes a BUG-style mod that fixes it soon.

 

[Scrooge]

I really wanted to LIKE Civ5 but the only thing it did to me was to switch to Civ4 + RevolutionsBTS after a week. Ahh, now that felt good.

Moderator Action: if you have nothing to add to the discussion, please don't post in it. This comment didn't actually do anything to further the topic in any direction. - ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aristos]

Becomedeath is right, the only way you will know if you like it, is to play it yourself.

Here's my opinion anyway for what it's worth: Yes it is definitely worth playing with Thal's VEM mod. Without VEM, not so much.

While some people hate the diplomacy in Civ 5, I really like it. Of course it could still use some work, to stop things like this happening: Washington Fail
(I think that particular problem is one of presentation - the AI leader displaying a greeting that is not appropriate to the situation - rather than anything broken in the underlying mechanics.)

Another thing I have tried recently, instead of increasing the difficulty level (carpet of doom, urgh) play with house rules, for example:
- no giving money to city states
- no selling open borders for cash
I found this both more challenging and more fun.

I still really really hate the user interface and I hope someone makes a BUG-style mod that fixes it soon.

you may want to try the combo InfoAddict-CivWillard-CivUP (only, no VEM)... that is the closest thing to BUG in civ5 so far.

 

[joasoze]

This is the first CIV game I havent bought, so lets hope for an improved CIV VI

 

[Becomedeath]

This is the first CIV game I havent bought, so lets hope for an improved CIV VI

Ah the paradox of opinion I face with my kids.

I don't like it.

Have you tried it?

No, because I don't like it.

 

[spider1]

I've posted in several of these "Is Civ V worth buying?" threads (this place gets them like every month it seems). Any chance the mods can just merge them all and sticky the thread?

In any case, yeah, IMO, it's worth buying even though it still has some issues. There's not a single game in the Civ series that didn't have something about it I disliked, and V is no different. Civ V's big problem is the dumbass deplomacy, which is just horrible. I hope that gets fixed someday, but the game can still fun to play. After a while you learn to pick and choose your civ, map, and AI opponents that are most likely to get you the gaming experience you want out of Civ V. That, and all the mods you can pick from. The modding community for Civ V is just fantastic. I play all my games with various mods now, and am not sure I could play a "straight vanilla" game anymore.

 

[cman2010]

just buy civ 4 with both expansions its like 5 bucks and way better than civ 5 which is a crap game with a borken ai.
Moderator Action: Such posts are considered spam.

 

[lschnarch]

Civ V's big problem is the dumbass deplomacy, which is just horrible.

You forgot to mention the combat AI, which is just braindead.
Moderator Action: Such posts are considered being spam if they do not include any arguments.

 

[jbevermore]

I honestly wonder how many people who claim the AI is "braindead" have tried it with the most recent patch.

It's much improved, I haven't seen any artillary in the front lines for quite some time.

 

[LegionSteve]

I still see them put ranged units in the front line. Hell, I still see them put settlers in the front line

 

[cman2010]

I still see them put ranged units in the front line. Hell, I still see them put settlers in the front line

the settler thing must be new as I dont remember that. the last time I played civ 5 after the december patch I did notice the combat ai had improved but it was still not enough the ai was still easly beaten. Now the diplo is still broken as far as I know.

 

[Carnifaux]

I find it amusing that everyone who hates CiV AI likes to quote Civ4 as the gold standard. It really wasn't, give a few techs and share a religion to gurantee close buddies for 4000 years.

Diplomacy has got to be the hardest part of the game to code. Granted it was just flat unacceptable on release (actually most of the game was), but I honestly think people dislike the new system because they can't turn everyone into diplomatic puppet states like they used to be able to.

Agreed, I think what a lot of people are forgetting here was the state of cIV vanilla when it came out. Stupidly easy diplomacy determined solely by things like civics and religions isn't inherently superior to baseless AI with sociopathic backstabbing tendencies.

CiV diplomacy could be at least temporarily patched by giving positive actions a lot more weight in the relation pool. Have what is now a +1 for returning a worker turn into a +3, and have positives decay half as fast as negatives. Of course this isn't perfect but it would make it a lot more workable.

 

[qemist]

CiV diplomacy could be at least temporarily patched by giving positive actions a lot more weight in the relation pool. Have what is now a +1 for returning a worker turn into a +3, and have positives decay half as fast as negatives. Of course this isn't perfect but it would make it a lot more workable.

No, it would make it more warm and fuzzy for newbies. It would make it stupidly easy to game for knowledgable players.

 

[Carnifaux]

No, it would make it more warm and fuzzy for newbies. It would make it stupidly easy to game for knowledgable players.

Would you mind elaborating on why this is so stupidly easy and easy to game? I'm also curious how you feel about the state of research agreements and how they can be gamed.

 

[LzPrst]

Meh, I am so lukewarm to civ5 that I don't know how to express it. It has a number of for me deal-breaking flaws in its design.

1. 1upt works well when you have tactical room to manouver. In civ5 you do not. A single mountain pass and you can have your troops fend off the Persian hordes for not just 5 days, but for 5 centuries. Silly and boring. Also, the AI can not adapt to it and it creates so much unfun micromanagement. Micromanagement should be a voluntary option related to depth and tweaking, not boring and repetitive logistics.
2. The production system bores me senseless. Resources are not particularily valuable, city placement is not an important strategic evaluation and you get too little out of your worked hexes. I get so bored waiting for units/buildings to finish
3. The unique civ traits. I hate this. I can not urge how much I hate this. I like to play a civ and adapt to the lands and situation around me. Civ5 says "Here is Germany, playstyle prepackaged do the same damned thing every game since that is what works for that civ". It is revolting, (not to mention unrealistic) and lousy game design as it kills replayability. The only way to keep the game fresh is to introduce ever new civs as DLC. Oh wait...
4. Linear tech tree. So boring.
5. I could go on, but I have to go see a dentist which will probably be more fun than playing civ5.

 

[MkLh]

Agreed, I think what a lot of people are forgetting here was the state of cIV vanilla when it came out. Stupidly easy diplomacy determined solely by things like civics and religions isn't inherently superior to baseless AI with sociopathic backstabbing tendencies.

Those who complain how easy it was to get a friend in cIV kind of miss the whole point of cIV diplomacy. The point is to choose who you want to be a friend with. The point never was that it should be very challenging or impossible to make friends at all.

 

[smallfish]

Those who complain how easy it was to get a friend in cIV kind of miss the whole point of cIV diplomacy. The point is to choose who you want to be a friend with. The point never was that it should be very challenging or impossible to make friends at all.

It's never impossible to be friends in Civ V. It's certainly difficult to keep good relations with everyone for three thousand years, but impossible making friends? Nah, I make a lot of friends, trade with them my borders and luxes for gold even, and maybe even push them into the occasional war, but I don't expect it to last very long across time and space.

 

[faysalitani]

Someone's already said it, but it's frustrating enough to reiterate: It's fun for a couple of weeks, then back to Civ IV.

To be fair and give credit where it's due: The combat system is fair superior to Civ V's. Granted, this isn't a war game, but if you've chosen to fight a war, or found yourself in one, then it's got to be at the very least a bit realistic. And Civ V trumps IV any day in this aspect.

I also love the limit on strategic resources, and the whole concept of limiting the amount of units and the spaces they can manoeuvre in. I think this is a vast improvement over the older game. As are the graphics.

And I actually like the Social Policy aspect. It makes sense when you think about it. Civilisations do develop organically, and much of is rooted in their past development. In that respect, Civ V is more realistic than the Civics idea in Civ IV.

But this all does't matter, really, because at the end of the day, the AI is broken. Not poor, or imperfect, but broken. And the effects on diplomacy are a disaster. Of course there is some sort of mechanism and it's not totally random, but there's no way to gauge the diplomatic environment, test relationships and measure them, and take decisions accordingly. Frankly, it's terrible.

I gave it a month of non-stop gameplay and have read every diplomacy guide out there. It just doesn't work. I even like the idea of the AI playing to win. But clearly the AI here is just playing to make you lose, rather than to win. How deeply disappointing, and what a sad and cynical attempt at making the game more 'realistic'. Terrible. I'll wait for Civ VI.