Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Brian Shanahan]

I think most people who think civ5 is deeply flawed in many ways (which is opinion and you can't really proof)

Actually you can prove whether something is flawed or not, because it is an objective decision set. The kind of proofs needed would be things like, "is the game playing as designed?" (Nyet, even now that they've nerfed every single strategy that Shafer doesn't like), or "how buggy is the game?" (very at start, and even now there are elementary bugs in the gam), or "has it been properly tested?" (not a chance, otherwise they would have found the incompatibility issue between 1UPT and strategic level empire management which is game breaking), and about 100,000 different things which contribute massively to the unplayability of Civ 5 as a strategy game.

respect mod decission (ok granted we have no other choice that this forum should be for ppl who like the game and just don't post.
That's why you'll find few examples now.

No this forum should be for people who are fans of the series who want to talk about the series, what is good with the games what is bad with the games, and when a turkey comes out trash it completely. If you want to go back far enough into the archives, you can see the absolute different approach taken towards all the criticisms of Civ 3 and it's two expansions where free discussion was allowed of the game and all its many flaws and bugs.

But unfortunately the site sold out, despite not needing to, when Civ 5 was announced and has been drinking the corporate kool-aid ever since on it.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

While I'm not sure about the AI, this is just wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; there is no feasible way any one could prefer the massive stacks of doom in Civ IV to the 1UPT system in Civ V. City States bring an interesting diversion to the game also, an element absent from Civ IV that can sometimes come in very useful.

Yes there is, stacks of doom work, 1UPT breaks the game. Even now I'm seeing games being played by competent players (not good, not great, just ordinary) where the AI is being played like chumps because the game doesn't have the processing capabilities to run the complex calculations needed. And this is not going near the whole issue of how you get a system which can only work on the tactical level to fit into a game which is strategic level only.

Oh, and CS's are only micoromanagment point milkers which Civ 4 larglely eliminated (well you could milk by micro in Civ 4, but it only got you a better score, not a better game) as it was that kind of design which really hurt Civ 3 as a game. So in effect the only praise you can give the newest game is "It has regressed in design to 2001. Well done for throwing out the last 11 years of game improvements."

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I'll just chime in with a quick reply: I held off on getting the game due to posts like the above, little did I know that for me at least, Civ 5 is far superior to prior games.

Civ 4 is a great game but in retrospect often boils down to a race to the most units. Civ 5 has an entirely new tactical level, and it seems possible to win with smaller empires. On the higher difficulties it is more than hard enough.

Just my 0.02, thanks

Civ 5 Deity was beaten within a week of release, that's not improving difficulty from Civ 4 where deity was functually unbeatable (unless you crafted the map yourself) on release and for a long time after.

Even now there is one right way to play all levels of Civ 5, which is incredibly easy; 1) Abuse AI trade deals, 2) Abuse CS's, 3) Build Porcelain Tower and abuse RAs 4) Win the game however you want (though dom/conq will be quickest). This is probably easier to do on Deity than, say, King because the AIs have so much money it is just stupid what you can do.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

I went back to civ 4, and I am losing very quickly in the game to barbarians (raging barbarians is turned on). I love that civ 5 has a base defense now.

I agree with you Brian, civ 5 is a more upset than 3 was in my opinion. Good ideas but just for a different game. If civ had tactical combat, 1upt would have a purpose, but as large as the scope of the battlefields in CIV, having 1upt controlling between aprox 250-1000 miles (depending on map size) of a grid is game breaking, not to say the game has no handle on the tactics needed as moving around them with AUTO embark is not too hard to do as well.

I dont mind graphics, civ 5 has the best graphics so far, but ll play crappy graphic games if the game being so good, but thats all that was put into this one.

They added hex to grab board gamers who like the hex style, really wasnt a need of changing it, but I can accept it.

The fans love the UU, UA's which Id "prefer" to be more of an after thought than how civ 5 is designed, if I have a civilization near elephants, no reason why my civ couldnt build elephant units...but alas people want the real world nations benifits over a more sandboxed nation. (I do like personalities though, but that would be in a game where diplomacy existed)

 

[King Kalmah]

The fans love the UU, UA's which Id "prefer" to be more of an after thought than how civ 5 is designed, if I have a civilization near elephants, no reason why my civ couldnt build elephant units...but alas people want the real world nations benifits over a more sandboxed nation. (I do like personalities though, but that would be in a game where diplomacy existed)

I really wonder why they haven't done that already...

It would make more realistic game play options/recreate historical situations.Sure the Russians didn't have Elephants,but why not make it your unique unit if you have four or five elephants and only one iron...makes logical sense both historically and gameplay wise...(the russians do have a mounted tradition and the elephants could be upgraded to Cossacks eventaully which is always fun both gameplay wise and historically kinda fun/unique...)

CS's give you random UUs right now,which alot of people love the randomness,but why is random so much fun when it makes no sense historically speaking,plus it could be gamebreaking if they gift you a certain unit earlier enough.....

 

[gps]

The fans love the UU, UA's which Id "prefer" to be more of an after thought than how civ 5 is designed,

I would like to add I prefer the more formalized traits system of III and IV over the very specific unique abilities we have in V. The system in the former games is simple, very effective (just think what great, unique character and personality some of the leaders develop based on a handfull of simple and clearly defined traits) and much more balanced than what we have in V. But that's really just subjective, personal opinion and preference. Feel free to disagree...

 

[Drakarska]

I would like to add I prefer the more formalized traits system of III and IV over the very specific unique abilities we have in V. The system in the former games is simple, very effective (just think what great, unique character and personality some of the leaders develop based on a handfull of simple and clearly defined traits) and much more balanced than what we have in V. But that's really just subjective, personal opinion and preference. Feel free to disagree...

Not at all, agree completely. Especially since of one of the branches in Civ V is totally worthless. TYVM Mr. Shaefer-Genius, that was really well thought out.

Peeps can complain about SoD's all they want, but here's the kicker; 1) if your taking on more than one AI at a time, then your going to need multiple stacks.. which costs boo qoo amounts of couch change.
2) your SoD is going to loose some of it's troops, and getting reinforcements to your Sod takes time.
3) The AI isn't totally brain dead, and depending on difficulty level, will attempt thwart your dastardly plan of ruling the world.
4) There are quite a few kick-ass mods for BtS that make SoD's rather costly, and are given penalties.
5) *insert various reasons here*

Point being, it's about the immersion factor, which Civ V clearly doesn't have. At least to me. if I wanted to play PG, I would. Or even invest in one of the new war game sims ( forget which one it was). Civ has never been a war game, it's an empire builder, and unfortuneately, you get punished for building a large empire in this new version.

 

[logintime]

I'll admit I've not followed anything involving Civ5 in some time- my distaste for how bad it was led me to stop playing ages ago. I'm curious though, has the expansion pack fixed any of the major issues those of us on this thread had with the vanilla game? Or was it simply espionage/religion and a few new civs?

 

[Andulias]

I'll admit I've not followed anything involving Civ5 in some time- my distaste for how bad it was led me to stop playing ages ago. I'm curious though, has the expansion pack fixed any of the major issues those of us on this thread had with the vanilla game? Or was it simply espionage/religion and a few new civs?

Wrong thread for sure, almost nobody posting here regularly has actually played G+K Depends on what issues you had with the game. If you thought 1UPT sucks and tech trading should make a return then no, G+K did nothing to remedy that. But if you thought V had a lot of potential, but was an unfinished mess then yes, it fixes a lot. It made diplomacy a lot more transparent and fun, (and yes, now it is possible to be BFFs with other civs), combat is better paced, the new tech tree is leaps and bounds better than the vanilla one, a somewhat better but still not stellar tactical AI, an overhaul of Research Agreements, much better CSs who give a lot more and more varied quests while being much harder to buy out, almost all GPs have been tweaked and GSs aren't as OP as before. All these tweaks and more on top of a really awesome religion system and espionage, which, well, at least it doesn't get in the way like espionage in BTS and you can do some pretty cool things with it.


It doesn't add that much, but it tweaks and refines a lot and while CiV is still rough around the edges, particularly when it comes to the AI, I haven't felt like playing IV since G+K launched. Just my 2 cents.

You should rather check this thread for information and this one for community impressions though. There is a whole sub-forum dedicated to the expansion after all. This thread is all about ranting - you won't find people here who actually like the game.

 

[gps]

I'm curious though, has the expansion pack fixed any of the major issues those of us on this thread had with the vanilla game?

This thread is all about ranting - you won't find people here who actually like the game.

Seems like you missunderstood the question. He was asking objective opinion, not some fanboy worship...

 

[Andulias]

Seems like you missunderstood the question. He was asking objective opinion, not some fanboy worship...

I had major issues with vanilla, said as much many times. But of course you can keep attacking me personally on every thread you can find because I don't agree with you, that makes you seem so mature.
Moderator Action: Please don't troll.

 

[ThERat]

I hate Civ V to the core, it's bland and unimaginative. Of course, the game breaker is 1upt.

Well, I played the G+K demo twice. During peace time, the game is the sleeping pill it has always been (nothing much to do as 1upt has to force the game to get you few units etc.) Decided to attack the Mongols out of boredom. Guess what, he had 1 city with a staggering 3 units (that was almost 100 turns into the game). The only reason it took me longer to take his city was the usual 1upt traffic jam. Jamming units annoyed the hell out of me yet again.

I quit in disgust. In short, if you don't like all the new nonsense that Civ 5 came up with. the expansion isn't going to help. By the way, the AI is still brain dead, which thanks to 1upt is ever more apparent. I rather go back and play the excellent C3C CCM mod. Now, that's a game I really enjoy.

 

[Esperr]

I just wish the game had more depth, im thinking about going back to Civ Iv, but there was so much crap I hated in that one to.

 

[headcase]

Is it just me or did they buff Tradition and nerf Liberty in G+K in a way that was not related to the new features of G+K? In other words they should have patched that in for vanilla players?

If they did patch that in for vanilla players, ignore this post.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I just wish the game had more depth, im thinking about going back to Civ Iv, but there was so much crap I hated in that one to.

Exactly ! The series started to go down seriously with the 4th. Maintenance system vs global happiness, the two things that make you mad.

 

[Jayman1000]

Exactly ! The series started to go down seriously with the 4th. Maintenance system vs global happiness, the two things that make you mad.

I have to disagree, IV was the pearl, the masterpiece. Its inherent ability to be modded almost in any way you want. I agree Vanilla Civ IV, and also Vanilla BTS, have serious problems. BUt the genius lies in its potential. A potential Civ V will never ever have, unless you rework the entire Civ V core game code; which will basically mean a new game; which will never happen because Civ V was/is a financial success.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

"You built wonders they coveted", wtf?!?

Babylon built more wonders than I but Persia isn't mad at them for this same reason? My only "ally" in this current game is the pseudo city state of Polynesia (He lost all cities but Honolulu to Persia). I'm just going to rip the world apart with my military, I have no allies and I feel unsafe going for a culture win with Persia around.

 

[Ruerl]

Okay, I know this may be a weird pet peeve of mine but:
Would'nt it be nice if the authors behind civ5 and similair games checked up on historical facts before writing about them? Things that just struck me as well, wrong, was for example:

- Hoplites being "highly trained" (the greeks, with the exception of Sparta, did'nt even train as a unit)
- Hoplite myth of fighting in a dence formation (that requires a lot of training, none of the greek city states save Sparta actually trained together prior to the Peloponnesian war).
- Alexander, he's not even greek! He's macedonian. Greeks in that period lived in Polis, a unique political city form which haven't occured since. Alexander however came from the Kingdom of Macedonia.
- The katana being stated as superior (this one buys into the katana fetish some people have), no! Katana's are not superior to western longswords at all, they are folded that many times because they are made out of poor steel. Its not a "unique japanese" forging technique either.

I'm sure there are many more, those where just those that struck me.

 

[Andulias]

Okay, I know this may be a weird pet peeve of mine but:
Would'nt it be nice if the authors behind civ5 and similair games checked up on historical facts before writing about them? Things that just struck me as well, wrong, was for example:

- Hoplites being "highly trained" (the greeks, with the exception of Sparta, did'nt even train as a unit)
- Hoplite myth of fighting in a dence formation (that requires a lot of training, none of the greek city states save Sparta actually trained together prior to the Peloponnesian war).
- Alexander, he's not even greek! He's macedonian. Greeks in that period lived in Polis, a unique political city form which haven't occured since. Alexander however came from the Kingdom of Macedonia.
- The katana being stated as superior (this one buys into the katana fetish some people have), no! Katana's are not superior to western longswords at all, they are folded that many times because they are made out of poor steel. Its not a "unique japanese" forging technique either.

I'm sure there are many more, those where just those that struck me.

Civ for better or worse has never actually been about historical accuracy, but rather a mix of reality and a romantic version of history. That's why we get praetorians as military units in IV, something they never actually were, and silly mountain hopping Carthaginian elephants in V.

I will comment on two of your points though

Alexander the Great was a Greek. He was born in Greece, in a part of Greece that's always been Greek, he was tutored by Greeks, he spoke Greek, he behaved like a Greek and he considered himself a Greek. Even the word "Macedon" is actually Greek. There is literally nothing to support the idea that Alexander the Great wasn't a Greek, so I fail to see how you don't consider him to be one. The ancient kingdom of Macedon barely even touches the borders of modern Macedonia, pretty much the whole thing was in Greece

As for the katana, it is significantly sharper than the longsword, plain and simple. It isn't as sturdy, lacks range and in close combat you can't hit anyone with that pommel, but when it comes to slashing things, katanas are sharper. It's stupid to call one better than the other because both had a different purpose in combat though, I agree, but like I said, this isn't about real history here. It's what we all imagine history was like After all, this is the game where the wheel is required to research pottery, when in reality pottery pre-dates its wheel by some 20 000 years

 

[Ruerl]

Civ for better or worse has never actually been about historical accuracy, but rather a mix of reality and a romantic version of history. That's why we get praetorians as military units in IV, something they never actually were, and silly mountain hopping Carthaginian elephants in V.

Certainly true, I would just wish they removed the "historical info.

Alexander the Great was a Greek. He was born in Greece, in a part of Greece that's always been Greek, he was tutored by Greeks, he spoke Greek, he behaved like a Greek and he considered himself a Greek. Even the word "Macedon" is actually Greek. There is literally nothing to support the idea that Alexander the Great wasn't a Greek, so I fail to see how you don't consider him to be one. The ancient kingdom of Macedon barely even touches the borders of modern Macedonia, pretty much the whole thing was in Greece

I am not speaking about modern macedonia here but about historical macedonia, which is something entirely different, as for speaking greek. Well, that was done by the entire mediterrenean region, speaking greek is not however being greek.

That the word "macedon" is greek too does'nt change anything either, "Barbarian" is greek too, but barbarians are not greeks either.

The Greek that tutored him (Aristoteles) did'nt change that he in fact killed the city state culture (which is the defining trait for classical greece) for good. No, he was not greek, he was Macedonian, his name is "Alexander III of Macedon" if you want to go technical.

In short, I argue that he is not greek from the view that he was not a part of the greek culture, he was not by the greeks of the time considered greek either for that matter, he was not a part of the city-state thinking and his methods, army and organization was far superior to that of the greeks who where far more ritual on their warfare. He's associated with greece but was'nt really greek and the "classical greek hoplite phalanx" is'nt greek either for that matter, its macedonian. And the Macedonians knew how to train for war. Unlike every other greek city state (save sparta and the post-pelloponesian war Thebans). But then, i'd argue that classical greek culture died with the end of the Pelloponesian war too.

As for the katana, it is significantly sharper than the longsword, plain and simple. It isn't as sturdy, lacks range and in close combat you can't hit anyone with that pommel, but when it comes to slashing things, katanas are sharper. It's stupid to call one better than the other because both had a different purpose in combat though, I agree, but like I said, this isn't about real history here. It's what we all imagine history was like After all, this is the game where the wheel is required to research pottery, when in reality pottery pre-dates its wheel by some 20 000 years

Its the claim the game makes that the sword is superior that I have an issue with -Its also by the way a superb thrusting weapon as cutting tests show. But I would not call it "significantly sharper" its significantly easier to cut with due to the curved edge, but thats about it. (and an european longsword is significantly harder to make slashing cuts with unless you know how to do it)
And the small (and in battle insignificant) sharpness it has over the longsword comes at the cost of being more brittle.