Civilization 5 Rants Thread

maybe should join with the rants thread?

all of these are choices, I don't see how they make the game worse.
 
What's a "tic"? I guess you're not talking about a nervous twitch.
 
Moderator Action: "... that make the game worse" merged into the main rants thread
 
5 games on Deity, all ended before turn 100 due to AI just creating an army out of thin air. I'm getting backstab rushed by "peaceful" civilizations. **** them in particular
 
Just bought and played a game of Civ5.
I came here to this erstwhile thread to report my reportings, talked to death though they probably have all been.
So patched vanilla game I was playing as of 2015.

Combat is pretty good. Not the traffic jams, but the way units fight, the damage they gain/receive. I had fun attacking a cluster of cities protected by mountains, peeking my artillery up the hill to take pot shots, using riflemen as cannon-fodder, finally storming the cities taking heavy losses (I could have played surgically but I prefer the meat-grinder approach).

However, the game sucks. It is not immersive. I am penalised for building roads, for building new cities! So much so that by 1920AD around a third of the total landmass of the planet was unclaimed/uninhabited. I have to reason that in Civ5, human beings are generally uninterested in expansion, in going forth and multiplying, and generally uninterested in change itself.
And the worst thing is, I wouldn't mind if the effects of global unhappiness were actually interesting, like separatist movements forming, civil-wars, revolutions etc. But (and it reflects the game generally) the effects are just BORING. Cities just stop growing (are people so unhappy that they stop having sex?), and at a higher level of unhappiness, production and combat get penalties. How about a mass-strike with the possibility of workers overthrowing your government, with soldiers defecting or deserting? How about something, anything, with some charm, some imagination, some requirement of thought for the player. It's really a starved game.
 
There are some aspects of the game they could have made exciting and by, exciting I mean more immersive. My last game was sooo boring. I guess I was doing everything right cos no one attacked and all of (all 22) just coexisted building, building, building.

I miss the random events that Civ4 had which gave you stuff that was DIFFERENT to deal with like plane crashes and other issues. Firaxis made a huge mistake removing this to please people who can`t handle unpredictable events (like in er- REALITY) and made a game a lot more boring than it needs be.

Anyway, downloaded a Mod that adds events and decisions, but a lot more should have been done by Firaxis.
 
Well, it appears that Civilization 5 was groundbreaking after all.

Civilization 5 ----> Civilization 5: Beyond Earth -----> Starships.

Each one simpler and simpler. *Ugh*
 
LOVE (not to say the other word), this game is really getting on my nerves now. Immortal, playing Egypt (for additionnal happiness with temples), stuck with two cities by Hiawatha. Declare war. Take his five cities. Now declaring on Gengis. Take his capital. Happiness before it : 20. After, knowing that in the same turn I completed a courthouse and the Eiffel Tower, - 14 ! (one resource got pillaged though) I really don't get it and this is getting on my nerves very seriously. OK, I have -11 happiness dissidents, took a size 20 (now 10) city with no additionnal resources that i don't already have, but damn ! Going from +20 to -14 ? Just how can this happen ? Jesus ! Global happiness never ends to get on MY LOVED nerves ! :crazy: Firaxis, change that in Civ6 !!!!!!!
 
Aw...6x Stone around my first 2 cities and Cathy be like..."Ow, I've got one marble. Let's take +2 faith from quarries-pantheon, derp." ..one turn before my own pantheon is ready.

On a sidenote..when I have a lot of wine and/or incense around my starting location, almost always the first (if not second) religion founded by an AI will have monasteries, even without them having any of that luxuries..do they do it just out of spite or what? D:
 
Going from +20 to -14 ? Just how can this happen ?

That is typically about what I experince anytime I take a cap. It slowly comes back up, it will be okay!

do they do it just out of spite or what?

It really does feel like that. Or building Petra with 1 desert tile. I do wish that picking monastaries required the lux in the Holy City, and that Petra required three desert tiles. That sort of thing would help make the game more fun for the player. I would put boycotting CS and luxes into makes-the-game-less-fun category as well.
 
That is typically about what I experince anytime I take a cap. It slowly comes back up, it will be okay!

The deeper problem is that it makes no sense at all. Why on earth should your whole country go into rebellion (to make it worse, they actually they don't, they just stop having sex) if you are successful in a war? Catastrophic flaws in design like this mercilessly reveal the utter incompetence of the developers of this game. I shudder to acknowledge that the global happiness issue, abhorrent as it may be, is rather one of the minor problems compared with the other horrendous failings in the game.
 
(to make it worse, they actually they don't, they just stop having sex)

:lol: That's a rather elegant way of putting things. :lol:

But let's be honest, after the industrial/modern period, the more probable scenario is that your government just forced everyone to take birth control during those times ;).
 
:lol: That's a rather elegant way of putting things. :lol:

But let's be honest, after the industrial/modern period, the more probable scenario is that your government just forced everyone to take birth control during those times ;).

It's maybe not that crazy to have lower happiness - some form of rationing/shortages in wartime is hardly uncommon, and that won't exactly make the population euphoric, nor make it easier to feed their families; not to mention that more men are likely to be away fighting.
But as a conquering player it is a bloody nuisance!:)
 
Global happiness is the opposite of catastrophic. At the very worse, it is an interesting design choice. When I find something odd in the game, I try and look for a rationalization. I mean, it is an abstract simulation after all.

IMHO, the most horrendous failing in the game is that cities on plains cannot build stoneworks. So yeah, I am pretty happy with it!

Why on earth should your whole country go into rebellion ... if you are successful in a war?

Citizens back home don't like war. It hardly matters that the war is successful. Your citizens are paying a high cost, and getting no benefits themselves. Plus maybe their leadership is committing war crimes (razing cities).

to make it worse, they actually they don't [rebel], they just stop having sex

Sure they do. At -10 you get rebels. At -20 cities flip. Yes, Unhappy mostly means is no growth, but that is not necessary lack of sex. Low growth also means lack of immigration, you are not attracting new adult citizens.
 
When I find something odd in the game, I try and look for a rationalization.
Yet this is not how we establish a good foundation for evaluating reality. As an analogy, theologians, when confronted with the brutality and immorality of the bible, go to great lengths trying to somehow reconcile the book with our modern understanding of morality and their perceived notion of a good god. In order to rationalize the bible's barbarism, they essentially make up more and more nonsense to cover what is nonsense in the first place.
Likewise, you can make up all the stories you want about global happiness, but that won't ever turn it into a mechanic which even remotely resembles anything that ever occured in human history.

IMHO, the most horrendous failing in the game is that cities on plains cannot build stoneworks.
More like 1UPT, the most asinine and dim-witted decision ever to make it into a civ game. Unfortunately, also the most consequential one.

Citizens back home don't like war. It hardly matters that the war is successful. Your citizens are paying a high cost, and getting no benefits themselves. Plus maybe their leadership is committing war crimes (razing cities).
This is a purely modern viewpoint. Only in the last century has war gained such unpopularity in western societies.
More to the point though, it's not as if the civ5 citizens dislike the wars themselves - there is no war weariness of any sort like in civ4 - and they don't mind losing - they actually get happier if some cities are lost. Yet they despise winning and capturing cities. Now tell me, is this really worth rationalizing?

Low growth also means lack of immigration, you are not attracting new adult citizens.
I admit I'm impressed just how far and desperate your rationalizing effort goes. You'd make a good theologian! (No offense ;))
 
I have been scolded earlier in this thread for criticizing rants. It is okay not to like the game, or certain aspects of the game.

As an analogy, theologians, when confronted with the brutality and immorality of the bible, go to great lengths trying to somehow reconcile the book with our modern understanding of morality and their perceived notion of a good god. In order to rationalize the bible's barbarism, they essentially make up more and more nonsense to cover what is nonsense in the first place.

I agree with this.

Yet this is not how we establish a good foundation for evaluating reality.

Well, we are not talking about reality! We are discussing a game, and the mechanics therein. That said, since the game has aspects of a simulation, the game mechanics have to make some sense -- or it is immersion breaking.

More like 1UPT, the most asinine and dim-witted decision ever to make it into a civ game. Unfortunately, also the most consequential one.

For sure, that is controversial. We agree that it is the most consequential. I would argue that, on balance, it was a fine decision. I know I sure have been enjoying 5 more than 4 or 3, and 5 certainly seems to have been a commercial success.

For me, the failures of the AI (during war and diplomacy) is probably the most disappointing aspect of the game. But that at least was not a deliberate design decision!

This is a purely modern viewpoint. Only in the last century has war gained such unpopularity in western societies.

That is at least mostly true, but I have no problem with projecting my modern viewpoint on a game for western societies. OTOH we know things didn't go well for the folk on the front lines, and sons and fathers were frequently conscripted for years (if they came back at all) -- so war == unhappy has always been true for the common citizen (even when the war was far away).

More to the point though, it's not as if the civ5 citizens dislike the wars themselves - there is no war weariness of any sort like in civ4

I actually miss war weariness, but I think unhappiness is meant to reflecting the civ5 citizens disliking the wars.

and they don't mind losing - they actually get happier if some cities are lost

Agreed, that bit makes no sense. I think it is like that because the player mostly does not lose cities. If a player is losing cities, why penalize them more?

Yet they despise winning and capturing cities.

They despise being at war. I have no problem with that, especially since it is balanced against Ideology tenants that provide happiness. If there were no penalty associated with winning and capturing cities, which is what a lot of people seem to be wishing for, the game would be far less interesting. Domination victories would be so much easier. I very much appreciate the game tension as-is.

Now tell me, is this really worth rationalizing?

It is very interesting in play, and I find the game mechanics reasonable. If rationalization helps prevent games aspects from breaking a sense of immersion, yes, it is worth it!

I admit I'm impressed just how far and desperate your rationalizing effort goes.

Sorry, but I really don't feel like I am trying that hard. Now, please just don't ask me to justify pantheon benefits...

You'd make a good theologian!

LOL. It is my expertise in self-deception and rationalizations that kept me from atheism for many, many years...
 
I won't be responding to your individual statements, since I've made my claim. I do respect your honest and reasonable attitude.

Our main difference seems to boil down to that you don't care much if the game functions in a way which is historically implausible, as long as you enjoy the game mechanics. For me, historical plausibility, however far abstracted, must be at the heart of a game like Civ. If it isn't, it fails. Unfortunately for me, the developers were either completely ignorant of human history, or just didn't care about it at all.
 
This is a purely modern viewpoint. Only in the last century has war gained such unpopularity in western societies.
More to the point though, it's not as if the civ5 citizens dislike the wars themselves - there is no war weariness of any sort like in civ4 - and they don't mind losing - they actually get happier if some cities are lost. Yet they despise winning and capturing cities. Now tell me, is this really worth rationalizing?

I totally agree here. Right up to fairly modern times (before free press I guess) people should not be a problem if you`re winning the war, taking cities. Actually thinking about it the free press of say 1960s Vietnam is not so free in the 21st century. The `free` press is heavily controlled so we don`t see the horrendous casualties of ( many innocent civilians) in the ME.
Also, I hate how if I have 15 cities they`re super unhappy even with no war, but if my enemy in a war takes 10 of those cities while slowly getting closer and closer to wiping my people out they get happier!
I hadone game where I fought on until I had like 1 City left, the enemy are all around me, my army is taking constant losses, defeat was inevitable and everyone was beaming with pure happiness in my city!

It should be the other way round, with people threatening to rebel unless I make peace.:confused:
 
Top Bottom