Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Syntax Error]

Thanks for the welcome hc.

To each his own.
The combat system may grow on me over time, but it is difficult to like at this point.
As you say, its not the only issue some of us have problems with.

At least now, the combat odds are not ruled over by the Finicky Overlord known as the RNG (unless it's unit vs. unit and both have a chance to die completely). City Defense also implies that there's at least a militia present that will fight invaders as opposed to the populace just surrendering to a lone barbarian when the Warrior was on bio break.

Will try to play Civ 4 again when I get the time. Though I gotta love the ALL MIGHTY WHIP though. Means my productionless, but food-rich city can churn out infrastructure in a timely manner.

 

[shadowplay]

I really hate the Pikeman --> Lancer upgrade. Infantry should not be upgrading to cavalry.

 

[Civert]

Thanks for the recommendation, Funky.
I'll add it to my "need to play" list.

For a wide array of challenging variables that induce a lot of replayability, thus far I find the Civ series, hard to beat.

 

[Jayman1000]

he's not the first to post no rant. the first part of the post might be interpreted as sarcastic but not the rest, far from obvious, maybe the poster would like to elaborate

Highly sarcastic, I have bad feelings of Civ V, I kinda hate it. Especially because I wasted 50 euro on it expecting to get an awesome game... slowly the truth of this shallow and hollow shining corpse called CiV crept up on me. The only interesting thing about Civ V is the historical descriptions of leaders and civilization during the loading screen... A bit of an overstatement, because there are other things about CiV that are interesting, but they are minor and inconsequential compared to the massive lack of intelligent content.

I dont know., I just had to put my sarcastic thoughts to writing

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

emoticons help a lot when trying to convey sarcasm in text format, it works for me anyways.

 

[lollibast]

I like the leaders and their languages. that really gives a nice multicultural touch. the rest I just love

 

[Civking5]

As if all these rants were so valuable and fruitful for civ5 game, now lets fill it with all sort of sarcastic comments/junk. Please somebody come and close this thread for good.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

We are here to voice our opinion on how disappointing the game was for those of us. We spent the money just like the ravers... but we can't have a say in it?

 

[lollibast]

yeah, close down the only thread thats allowed to us (uh oh, some more sarcasm)

 

[RD-BH]

As if all these rants were so valuable and fruitful for civ5 game, now lets fill it with all sort of sarcastic comments/junk. Please somebody come and close this thread for good.

"I hate CiV sarcastic comments",
... "I hate CiV junk",
... and "Shut down the CiV rant thread" are off topic.
... If you want to discuss those topics, you should start new threads.

Meanwhile ... back at the ranch:
I hate CiV because after paying $100US the only fun I have is ranting about it
... and dodging textual attacks from fanboys.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

tbh I've had enough of the sarcasm. It's funny now and again but composing your post entirely of it becomes so confusing it's really just pointless spam.

That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Funky]

thb I've had enough of the sarcasm. It's funny now and again but composing your post entirely of it becomes so confusing it's really just pointless spam.

You're being sarcastic, right?

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

Nope, I'm 100% dead serious. :|

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

tbh I've had enough of the sarcasm. It's funny now and again but composing your post entirely of it becomes so confusing it's really just pointless spam.

That's my opinion anyway.

I agree 100%! I wasted a significant amount of my time responding to that bogus post. If you have rant, please clearly describe it without sarcasm or anything else that obfuscates it.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Browd]

Gotta love a rants thread that gets side-tracked by rants about whether other posts are or aren't "rant-ish" enough. Something deliciously self-referential in that.

 

[Freesmog]

Greetings all.


While only about 10 games in and still a nuber to Civ5, I can't help but agree with many of the viewpoints, here.

The 1upt, is not well suited to the tile per landmass representation.
There would need to be many more tiles to produce viable playability.

Or about 3 units should have been allowed per tile.

At any rate, it is what it is, as they say.

JMO.

The Civilization game I thought wasn't supposed to simply represent a tactical wargame. I always liked the epic worldwide feel to the game, and severely compartmentalizing the wargame side of it with unique units compromises that. I guess 12 upt is a more realistic approach.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

A real example from Civ IV that penalizes stacking is stacked Spies. When there are other friendly Spies present (a stack of Spies) in a plot (tile), the current Spy's mission has a significantly lower chance (~20%) of success.

Something like the above for Civ V's combat system would have been much better than 1UPT or even a maximum of 12 UPT. EDIT: Rather than a fixed stiff penalty of ~20%, the penality should be scaled to no. of units in the stack (maybe -1% per unit).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Freesmog]

A real example from Civ IV that penalizes stacking is stacked Spies. When there are other friendly Spies present (a stack of Spies) in a plot (tile), the current Spy's mission has a significantly lower chance (~20%) of success.

Something like the above for Civ V's combat system would have been much better than 1UPT or even a maximum of 12 UPT. EDIT: Rather than a fixed stiff penalty of ~20%, the penality should be scaled to no. of units in the stack (maybe -1% per unit).

Sun Tzu Wu

Depends on how realistic the game is, but 1 UPT is not a Civilization legacy characteristic. Let's put 1 warrior in Rhode Island.

 

[lollibast]

collateral damage for all units, more so for siege units, and leave the trade off decision to the player.
I always thought it was easier to attack in CIV because you just hammered the enemy stack with siege collateral damage and mopped up the rest of badly injured units with you regulars. imho you got penalised for keeping you units in a stack, think it even says so in a tooltip, to spread your troops. It was always a pain in the ass to smoke out an enemy unit entrenched on a forest tile. make that 10 units and you just gotta bring siege units

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

A real example from Civ IV that penalizes stacking is stacked Spies. When there are other friendly Spies present (a stack of Spies) in a plot (tile), the current Spy's mission has a significantly lower chance (~20%) of success.

Something like the above for Civ V's combat system would have been much better than 1UPT or even a maximum of 12 UPT. EDIT: Rather than a fixed stiff penalty of ~20%, the penality should be scaled to no. of units in the stack (maybe -1% per unit).

Sun Tzu Wu

There was a mod for Civ 4 called Defense which toyed with your idea. The more units stacked on a single tile, the weaker they became. Defense shipped with the complete Civ 4 collection.