Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Brian Shanahan]

I'd figure I'd note that Gabe has said before that in the event steam has to be shut down, he'd release keys for all the games.

That's an easy promise to make, just like Seán Quinn promising all along that his insurance company (currently showing €1.65bn losses hidden away a la Enron, despite being a small insurance company only operating in Irl & the UK) was capitalised enough to cover a mass claim event, despite knowing full well that he was talking bs of the smelliest variety.

In case you're wondering, I'm perfectly happy that <redacted> is deeply in trouble at the moment.

 

[CivRulez07]

Just a small thing that I'm slightly upset about:

finally got Gods and Kings today! Too bad school starts this week and I won't have much time to play it

 

[scyt4l3]

Just a small thing that I'm slightly upset about:

finally got Gods and Kings today! Too bad school starts this week and I won't have much time to play it

Come back when you are disappointed by it!
The nerve of these people...

 

[PhilBowles]

here's a small game rant. i just played with Inca on emperor and very early i bought a Slinger to escort a settler who encountered a barb with only 25% of his health. i know the slingers are much weaker in melee but since it was at 25% health i figured he could last. nope. the barb 1-shot and killed the slinger and took my settler. that is just STUPID that they are that weak! a barb with 25% health embarrassed that fool.

(couldnt find the thread about the worst UUs so i posted that here.)

Yes, it should at least have withdrawn out of the way so that it would survive when the barbarian grabbed the settler...

 

[lollibast]

i get the feeling that ranged units in G&K don't take reduced ranged damage any more, which makes siege weapons prior to artillery useless imho. When i move e.g. a cannon in range it takes a big hit from the city which forces me to move it out again the next turn for healing before it even got a single ball out.
i guess i need to bring at least 3 siege units...

 

[BONZAII42]

First, the good part. I absolutely love the game! The challenges are great and hours of my time that could be spent making me rich, is spent barbarically romping over the lands of Civ5 instead...

Now, the complaint... Which AIRHEAD at MicroProse invented the way you're forced through a sequence of your troops?? MY GOD!!! I have to make more forgiveness prayers on Sunday after each move when you jump me from one continent, then back, then to another and another... This has to be, by far, the most "frustrating" element of the game.

So tell me, how many of you enjoy being JERKED around the map like the Google man in Google Maps!?? All these fancy mods that you talented writers are making are GREAT, but I'd like to see someone REALLY apply their talents and create a PATCH for the most frustrating part of the game....

OK, off my soapbox..

Moderator Action: Merged with the rants thread.

 

[scyt4l3]

Bombers can't bomb tile improvements...
lol, wut!?
Oh the heresy!

 

[lollibast]

Bombers can't bomb tile improvements...
lol, wut!?
Oh the heresy!

right, air combat, a whole thread for itself. I just hate the way you have absolutely no clue what went on in the clouds. Did you shoot an aircraft down? Did you intercept, or did it just lousy damage? Where did all the enemies planes go? Shot down or rebased?

 

[scyt4l3]

I guess they call it streamlining, all this information and options must be superfluous! It's a feature! XD

 

[hobbsyoyo]

right, air combat, a whole thread for itself. I just hate the way you have absolutely no clue what went on in the clouds. Did you shoot an aircraft down? Did you intercept, or did it just lousy damage? Where did all the enemies planes go? Shot down or rebased?

Huh? Do you have combat animations off or play in strategic mode?

With animations on, you actually can clearly see what happens in air battles. It's actually really cool.

 

[salty mud]

I think Civilization V is an empire building game that punishes you for building an empire.

 

[Bad Brett]

I think Civilization V is an empire building game that punishes you for building an empire.

Nah. Civ 5 is 50% super cool intro video and 50% PG with updated graphics. Diablo II contains more empire building than Civ 5.

 

[lollibast]

uuugh, invisible units. especially nice with nuclear missiles aka where did all my panes go und why is it all dirty around that city

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I think Civilization V is an empire building game that punishes you for building an empire.

Channelling your inner Sullla

 

[Socratatus]

Still thinking about buying this game. I still don`t like the Giant death Robot thing though... The name itself makes me feel like I`m buying a game for 5 year olds. If you did make a Giant death robots, you wouldn`t call it a Giant death robot! Even Fall Out 3 got that right!

 

[H4run]

I play again civilization 5 with expansion but really the graphic is so dull and boring, it just make me want to puke out and religion system is a total joke. And the happiness core also doesn't reflect any realistic sense, not to mention the civic system, when peoples went on from one policies to other society reform, but these civilization even againts civilization itself, everything accumulating. And what kind of civic is honor? and tradition? does they meant the militaristic spartan reign? also the hex system, I don't know if many peoples admire it, but for me in real world we encompass direction but normally 8 direction, north, south, north west, south west, etc, if you imagine a room or spacial you imagine it on 8 direction not on 5 direction.

But still, the combat system, is pretty, after I play this I miss civ 4 so much, I can enjoy any side of civ 4 but the combat system really killing me, they build it on chances and there is no way u can retreat your army except also by chances, but in civ 5 u can fight and retreat, you can put your artilery in a hill and start shooting, this one I must said it awesome. And the stack system, if only they put the stack system with somewhat like europa universalis style, like if you put so many unit is one tile you get penalty on health, and it also depend on the terrain and weather. If anybody know a mods in civ 4 that replaces the combat system like civ 5 tell me please.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

But still, the combat system, is pretty, after I play this I miss civ 4 so much, I can enjoy any side of civ 4 but the combat system really killing me, they build it on chances and there is no way u can retreat your army except also by chances, but in civ 5 u can fight and retreat, you can put your artilery in a hill and start shooting, this one I must said it awesome. And the stack system, if only they put the stack system with somewhat like europa universalis style, like if you put so many unit is one tile you get penalty on health, and it also depend on the terrain and weather. If anybody know a mods in civ 4 that replaces the combat system like civ 5 tell me please.

But it is exactly the same combat system you are praising which kills Civ 5 as a game. To make 1UPT meaningful as a concept the game has to extremely limit tile yields or extremely accelerate teching to ensure that production of units on a large scale is not possible (incidentally Civ 5 does both). But the problem with doing this in a strategic level, empire-building game is that you kill the production and choices needed to make the strategic and empire-building sections meaningful and worthwhile. In other words in order to accomodate 1UPT you kill the soul of the Civilisation series.

So if the system cannot work when the game was designed to accomodate it, how do you think it'll do in a game where there is no accomodation for it?

Spoiler :

Hint: It'll be as bad as the Chelsea defence are tonight.

And stacking is a lot more subtle and flexible than you give it credit for (far more successful than Civ 5 1UPT in that manner too, where the only tactic is "build meat shield for your ranged units, and blast the AI dead from 2-3 tiles away). You don't have to go the "build SoD, attrittion the AI slowly" method, which is always the complaint against stacking.
In fact it is better to be more subtle with your attacks, by composing stacks based on movement, with a mobile 2 mover stack to fork and hit backline cities, and another big fist of artillery and melee/gunpowder units for the tough nut fortress cities the AI always has. Then you look to initiate multiple vectors of attack to keep the AI second guessing and moving their reserves around to no use. This makes war on the AI so much easier than the SoD option, even if you have a big tech or power lead. And if it is so much better to be subtle against the AI this kind of thinking is essential against human players who aren't the half-understanding children the AIs are.

 

[H4run]

I agree with your statement that 1upt is killing the soul of the game itself, because it also make a narrow mountainous terrain instead of being strategic it becoming like annoying and silly, and to control the quantity of the unit to not cover all over the world, they must limit the production in order to make it playable not chaos.

1upt its indeed killing the game and I like SOD in civilization game as it always been like that and it should be like that. But the things that is new and it is a good thing in civ5 is only one, which is the battle; don't make me feel like im playing a dice each time I engage battle, which only leave me with two results, "live or die". In Civ4 for example if I have a unit that already accumulate lots of level, and the combat odd is 90 percent, and when I attack, it just killed instantly there even no possibility to be injured and retreat (except for the horse unit, it also base on chances), it leave me no reason to consume my great general into unit, you don't want to lose your great general in dice game. While in civ5 the combat is not base on chances, I can hit and run with horse unit, I can get hit and lost the battle critically and retreat my unit and get slam by their horse while retreating there are sense of real battle. But u also have your point, the AI is too limited to be design to accompany us to play this way, in civ 4 I play my game at King Level while backthen in civ5 vanila I already play at Immortal, I restart my game to try the new expansion pack, I play it on prince to measure the difficulty and to get used with the system. Still not good, the religion system that suppose to heal the pain, it just make it worst.

I just wonder, how about to advance the stacking with attrition? it succeed in europa universalis. And also put like each unit reflect 1000 soldier. In green and fertile land, or at town, it can stack more unit, while in tundra, and rocky fertile land an SOD unit can get attrition per turn. But I must make a clear statement here, I really don't like the 1upt, hex, diplomacy, graphic, and everything inside the civ 5, except the things that I already mention above.

 

[H4run]

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.

Well this is something that always exist on civ.

Like Ghandi was a president or King in India, back then in Civ 4 they choose Saladin as a King of Arabs while Saladin was a ruler in Egypt to continue the reign of the Fatimid Empire and later birth the Mamluks and his origin is a Kurdish. They should choose some one like Harun Al Rasheed or Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, it is more correct.

Back in Civ1 or 2 these things doesn't matter because we are more tolerate there not so much comparison, but now since there are many historical empire strategy game that develop their game carefully all of this seem like a total joke. Like Arabic special unit is camel archer, while camel being used for desert battle, but when the Ummayyah battle the Byzantium and Sassanid, also Visigoth in Spain, they use horse. I think it is lack of research and it cause lack of depth, when they think about city that being surrounded by desert or when they think about the arabs, they just associate them with camel (im not an Arab myself but I found it pretty annoying). Why don't they make it like Anshari horseman or Mujahideen, which is more correct.

 

[Bad Brett]

But the things that is new and it is a good thing in civ5 is only one, which is the battle; don't make me feel like im playing a dice each time I engage battle, which only leave me with two results, "live or die". In Civ4 for example if I have a unit that already accumulate lots of level, and the combat odd is 90 percent, and when I attack, it just killed instantly there even no possibility to be injured and retreat (except for the horse unit, it also base on chances), it leave me no reason to consume my great general into unit, you don't want to lose your great general in dice game.

It's about risk management, which actually adds extra depth to the game. Powering up these super strong characters that are basically invincible can be fun in RPG games, but in empire buildings games it makes no sense whatsoever. The thing is that a stack 10 units will almost always beat a stack of 8 units with equal strength. You might feel bad about wasting your GG, but in general (pun intended ) the outcome is "fair".

The most common complaint is "just bring the bigger stack and steamroll the planet", but what they don't get is that the game is actually about getting to a point where you have the power to produce big stacks. If you neglect economy, religion, diplomacy etc. you probably won't become powerful enough to do that. The game is about collecting the resources, not battle tactics.

I won't say Civ IV was perfect though. In the modern era things often got out of hand. When every building/unit takes 2-3 turns to build and I have 30 cities, I stop caring.