Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[reddishrecue]

Civ IV could be better than civ v in some ways such as unit stacking. Sometimes unit stacking gets missed or in other times 1upt gets missed and vice versa.

 

[Thormodr]

Many sequels fail to build on and enhance their prequels, unfortunately, after not much deliberation I concur, CIV IV (except for speech and combat) is still superior to CIV V.

Indeed. Hopefully they revert to a proper Civ experience with Civ VI. The odd numbered Civs have been quite poor after the first. Still holding out hope that they'll get 'er done.

 

[sunbeam]

I am so sick of this being the only thing you can really open with.

Let me tell you a little more. My computer is not the best, so I play on small maps.

Usually the continents map. It usually seems like you have two or three civs on your starting continent, sometimes four. And the city states of course.

I just played Boudicca with the celts and made the mistake of going piety.

It didn't help that Montezuma and Alexander were my two neighbors, but this tree is so utterly crap. It's nice to build shrines and temples twice as fast.

But I didn't even get to philosophy before I had a war with Alexander. Nothing in that crap tree helps you at all when you know you are going to have an early war. Nothing. I actually took the thing where you buy pre-industrial units with faith, and had desert folklore. I actually made it to the piety policy where you got a discount on buying things with faith, but I didn't have enough to purchase a single unit after I founded a religion.

Okay, I've learned my lesson. I will start Tradition always. There is nothing but Tradition. Only Tradition.

Anything else is a luxury you can only afford when you don't have serious enemies or have already finished the sacred Tradition tree.

Even then you are only marking time till you can take the sacred Rationalism tree.

Why did they make some of these things suck so hard? The Celts are actually one of the best religious civs, and this thing was a puddle of poo.

I've actually done better toying with Religion (assuming some faith generating things for a pantheon) going tradition, than I did with these guys.

Just plain sucks, but I guess it is old news. I'm not really sure how much faith a Pictish warrior gets for a kill, but at 220 faith a pop to buy a composite bowman or another Pictish warrior it better be pretty good. (Can't remember what it was after the policy. 175 or something? Anyway way too much for someone generating like 8 or 9 faith a turn and having just founded a religion.)

I'm not even sure I have seen a Let's Play where someone started with Piety. I guess it shouldn't feel bad though, because except for very special circumstances Patronage sucks too. I mean just to really use it, you need money, and you don't get much of that till later in the game.

I'm not as experienced as most of you guys, but this seems like god awful game design. And it wasn't their first rodeo.

So what makes this whole thing balanced? Right now religion seems like a plaything you can use if you get the right kind of terrain. And the Celt feature isn't enough, you need the good pantheons. Heck your best pantheon choice might not generate any faith.

And if you can't really use Religion effectively, or it isn't a good choice, what good are these guys really (or the Byzantines)?

It would be different if some of these religious beliefs matched up with social policies. Like the religion one for border popping working as well as tradition's opener.

Or the religion policy that gives you 25% more gold for a temple in the city working with shrines. Or that stupid thing with the second most popular religion doing something like giving you happiness like Monarchy.

As it is now, religion and the piety tree are just toys. Maybe you can do more with it if you make it to the late game. But some of us have wars to fight till then, and these policies better give a lot more smack than piety does.

 

[Aheadatime]

You might be interested in this mod. It drastically changes the social policy trees (among countless other things, patch notes are in the link) in order to try to make the early game more balanced between the trees.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1me025Vepd3qXN5QqQtqakPUuSfQmk8D5Jv15SZp9ly8/edit

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Merged "You will go tradition and like it" into the main rants thread.

 

[Revent]

Woah, this thread is STILL going on. Civ V is clearly a bad game. Someone should send this to the devs. I don't think I've ever seen any sequel get THIS much hate before

 

[Nares]

Woah, this thread is STILL going on. Civ V is clearly a bad game. Someone should send this to the devs. I don't think I've ever seen any sequel get THIS much hate before

I've never played MOO3, but I've always heard that it takes the title for most disappointing sequel.

 

[MrUnderhill]

I think the whole deal with Tradition is just a reflection of a larger problem with social policies in general: the choice comes way too early compared to previous Civ games, so even a small difference in culture-per-turn has a snowballing effect on the rest of the game. The other policies aren't that bad -- for the mid-game. But in order to get anywhere with any of the social policies, you need CPT and you need it three turns ago, so Tradition (or maybe Liberty) becomes essential even if the bonus it gives isn't actually that great. Then the game rewards you for finishing the trees you're already in rather than spreading out, and the result? Nobody touches the other trees.

In Civ3, you couldn't switch from Despotism until you were halfway through the Ancient Era and you had to take a dead-end tech just to get Monarchy/Republic. With Civ4, the earliest civic you can pick up is Slavery, which still requires one or two techs (depending on whether you start with Mining or not). Monarchy doesn't come until the Medieval era, and Representation doesn't happen until the Renaissance unless you built the Pyramids (which is an investment in itself). In that time, you can explore the map, meet the rest of your rivals, find good city-building spots, and build up an economy before making a choice on government. And if you made a stinker choice, you could always roll back in a few turns.

In Civ5, you have to make a choice that will permanently affect how the game will play out with less than half the information you would have if the choice happened at the same time it does in Civ4 or 3. If you pick Tradition when it would have been better to go Liberty or vice versa, then it sucks to be you: better hope you had an earlier save.

 

[historix69]

I think the whole deal with Tradition is just a reflection of a larger problem with social policies in general: the choice comes way too early compared to previous Civ games, so even a small difference in culture-per-turn has a snowballing effect on the rest of the game. The other policies aren't that bad -- for the mid-game. But in order to get anywhere with any of the social policies, you need CPT and you need it three turns ago, so Tradition (or maybe Liberty) becomes essential even if the bonus it gives isn't actually that great. Then the game rewards you for finishing the trees you're already in rather than spreading out, and the result? Nobody touches the other trees.
...
... If you pick Tradition when it would have been better to go Liberty or vice versa, then it sucks to be you: better hope you had an earlier save.

The whole problem with SPs is caused by really small standard culture income and exponentially increasing SP costs so you can make only a few picks. I miss a "process culture" (that is turn production into culture) and a few culture specialist slots in every city. I use a mod where the writers guild is buildable in every city, which gives 3 slots. This allows me to pick the interesting SPs from Tradition and Liberty (e.g. Pyramids, faster worker) without running into SP shortage later and it is much more fun than the standard game ... (AI usually builds the writers guild soon in every puppet so I suppose that AI can use it properly.)

 

[Matthew.]

The extra culture isn't that important IMO. All 3 trees end up finishing at about the same time.

The difference between Tradition and every other tree, ancient era or not, is that it nullifies pretty much every weakness your empire needs to deal with early on in the game. Happiness becomes a non-issue, gold becomes a non-issue, even defending early rushes is a non-issue (seriously, doubt the AI is capable of ever dropping a composite bow garrison city with Oligarchy). I don't consider the free buildings that great, but even those mean you can rush libraries, NC, and universities while still getting your monuments and aqueducts up with ease.

Compare to Honor where you are punished. To get the measly 1 happiness (lowest out of the 3 original opening trees) you need to keep permanent garrisons. Which means you cannot use those units to go warmonger, which is kind of the purpose of the tree. So then you are forced to make even more military and now you are paying twice as much on unit maintenance compared to Tradition's almost zero unit maintenance. Half-cost barracks compared to free essential monuments/aqueducts is not even worth trying to compare.


I think my biggest rant about the whole situation is that typical yet always confusing scenario when a developer stops modifying a game when the fixes would be so easy. (Yes, there are mods, which I use, but there is something to be said about having it in the official game). Like that patch when BE was released that added bison and cocao and switched a couple policies around. It would have only taken an hour at the most to switch Tradition's free garrisons to Honor (it can keep the city strength), add some more happiness, maybe change Honor opening to give culture on all kills not just barbarians. Bam, done. Maybe perhaps still not the greatest tree, but at least it reverses some of the "punishment" and make it tolerable to use.

 

[historix69]

It would have only taken an hour at the most to switch Tradition's free garrisons to Honor

If you assume that tradition is usually played with 3-4 strong cities, the free garrisons are only a small benefit.

change Honor opening to give culture on all kills not just barbarians

I had the same idea a few days ago for a simple mod ... Depending on map size, layout and position of other civs, the amount of culture by barbarian kills can be minimal in some games.


The idea of honor is nice, but it is to weak in terms of culture, happiness, growth, gold income, ... Many strong military SPs come with autocracy but some of them should better be part of honor. I would include a bonus to barracks in honor, e.g. barracks +1 culture, +1 happiness, no maintenance for barracks or free garrison with barracks, double building speed for military buildings, -33% military upkeep cost due to military society ...

When looking at ancient and classical era, people usually assume that they can and should complete only one SP tree before investing in superior medieval or renaissance trees. Rescaling early SP costs may allow players more SP picks, maybe 10-12 SPs out of tradition/liberty/piety/honor/patronage before reaching medieval era. The combination of different trees would provide more flexibility and would reduce the problem that tradition is regarded as mandatory tree.

I also think it might be nice to have additional trees/perks/techs for living in certain climatic environments from start on, e.g. coastal societies, djungle societies, desert societies, plains/steppe (nomadic) societies, mountain societies, farmland societies ...

 

[calad]

MrUnderhill hit the spot: the biggest problem of civ5 is snowball effect. In civ4 you could snowball by making special cities for certain purpose but in civ5 your whole civ is one snowball.

 

[hippo_surprise]

MrUnderhill hit the spot: the biggest problem of civ5 is snowball effect. In civ4 you could snowball by making special cities for certain purpose but in civ5 your whole civ is one snowball.

But that is the point is it not? You are supposed to be building a civilization--not just a few good cities to spam everyone else with.

 

[calad]

But that is the point is it not? You are supposed to be building a civilization--not just a few good cities to spam everyone else with.

You hardly made any sense against snowballing effect.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You hardly made any sense against snowballing effect.

Actually he made sense in favor of it. He disn't answered the question, he questionned the question instead, which is a kind of answer by itself.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In Civ5, I play on Immortal, even though I aim Deity. In order to do so, I'm fixing myself an objective of 300 science beakers per turn in turn 200. So I play, and often end up seeing I won't reach this threshold... then I quit. Not only I won't reach it, but also, I usually have happiness problems at those times... so I hardly see how I could improve my game. (and i'm playing with egypt, with very happiness buildings built O.M.G.)
So, I'm playing half-games most of the time, quitting after turn 200 or so. As I don't achieve to do what I want, again, again and again, this is becoming sort of BORING, ANNOYING and ANGRYING.

However, I have watched tons of let's plays, especially Marbozir's, and still wonder how they can treat happiness. Often when I watch them, I'm like : "what ? From where comes this happiness ? This is impossible ! As if it were the same with me !? I can't believe it ! Hah, I don't get it" It's like there were an anti-me leprechaun program in this game, that loves to make me becoming mad.

 

[libfud]

In Civ5, I play on Immortal, even though I aim Deity. In order to do so, I'm fixing myself an objective of 300 science beakers per turn in turn 200. So I play, and often end up seeing I won't reach this threshold... then I quit. Not only I won't reach it, but also, I usually have happiness problems at those times... so I hardly see how I could improve my game. (and i'm playing with egypt, with very happiness buildings built O.M.G.)
So, I'm playing half-games most of the time, quitting after turn 200 or so. As I don't achieve to do what I want, again, again and again, this is becoming sort of BORING, ANNOYING and ANGRYING.

However, I have watched tons of let's plays, especially Marbozir's, and still wonder how they can treat happiness. Often when I watch them, I'm like : "what ? From where comes this happiness ? This is impossible ! As if it were the same with me !? I can't believe it ! Hah, I don't get it" It's like there were an anti-me leprechaun program in this game, that loves to make me becoming mad.

Be more selective in where you settle, prioritize luxury techs and improving them, and build circuses, stone works and colosseums, and at least get friendly with mercantile City States. Planting a city eats 4 global happiness, so you should try to settle your new cities in places where you have at least 1 new luxury, and preferably a second new, or at least a duplicate of the luxury unique to your region. If you can found a religion or an AI converts you to their religion, that can really help your happiness situation a lot too.

Since you brought up Marbozir, I can break down the happiness he has at one point in his Pridelands LP - he has two cities, one at 6 pop and one at 3 pop, so there's 15 unhappiness. However, he has improved Ivory, Salt, and Silver, which which in addition to the starting 9 Happiness you get from Prince and above, makes for 21 Happiness. He adopts Ascetism as one of his beliefs for his religion, which gives him one more happiness, for a total of 22. 22 - 15 = 7. Finally, since he discovered Uluru, his global happiness is also improved by one, which gives hiim 8.

Happiness is horribly implemented though, since the penalties for unhappiness are so severe. I can understand that city growth is impeded, and likewise cultural borders expand slower, but it's ridiculous that your army suddenly becomes much less effective because one of your cities grew. It also becomes pretty insane as soon as ideologies come into effect, making it either almost entirely meaningless or crushing you and forcing you to adopt another ideology if there's a cultural runaway, which makes you effectively lose two turns of progress while your empire is in revolt.

One of the other things that really ticks me off is the <snip> world congress. It's been a while since I played IV, but couldn't you defy the WC/UN in that game? Why the heck would an empire willingly submit to the whims of other countries for luxury bans? "Sorry Johnny, we must continue to go without salt today because our great leader didn't bribe enough city states to defeat Alexander the Terrible's proposal. Maybe next century your grandchildren won't suffer from sodium and iodine deficiency as we have."

It's not even that the UN is a bad idea, it's just terribly implemented. That luxury ban could have instead been a ban on just trading the luxury, which would still lead to less happiness for the target/victim.

While I'm on a roll, it's seems the devs decided to ignore the metagame when it comes to how food, gold and hammers are weighted. I've seen the governor decided to work 1F1H2G unimproved plains incense over 3F1H deer (granary, no camp). And you really better watch out if you have Cerro de Petosi in your city's working radius. Of course, this is easily fixed by micromanaging your cities, but this doesn't fix the problem for the AI. The AI wouldn't need half the insane production benefits it gets on Immortal and Deity if only city management was fixed, seeing as food is more valuable than hammers, and both are immensely more valuable than gold. I swear, the AI fetishizes gold and gpt to the point where it'd think 10 gpt, no growth and no hammers is more valuable than 0 gpt, 5 excess food and 5 hammers.

Moderator Action: obvious swear word removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[HeliosDisciple]

One of the other things that really ticks me off is the <snip> world congress. It's been a while since I played IV, but couldn't you defy the WC/UN in that game?

You could, but you'd get -5 Happiness in every city, a diplo hit with other civs if the resolution would've passed, and if you defied the Apostolic Palace, you'd lose the free hammers it gave to your religion's buildings.

Moderator Action: Quoted obvious swear word removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[stormtrooper412]

300 beakers on turn 200 is incredibly low. Even I can do much better that that. Agree on the happiness front though, I very rarely not have problems with happiness in midgame

It's certainly not horribly implemented. It's horribly implemented in BE where you can dip into -20 and absolutely nothing will happen and you can still ICS to win

 

[Tatran]

You could, but you'd get -5 Happiness in every city, a diplo hit with other civs if the resolution would've passed, and if you defied the Apostolic Palace, you'd lose the free hammers it gave to your religion's buildings.

That's not true. There's no diplomatic penalty.

I agree that a civ5 game with Alexander in it, becomes predictable and boring really fast