Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[beetle]

@Thormodr, with the III, IV, and V expansions I could communicate in a single sentence or two what they brought to the base game and why they were a good deal. Granted, I have not played VI, but the expansion seems very underwhelming. Why do you like it so much? What does it do? Thanks!

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Let's not use the Civ V Rants thread to discuss Civ VI. Not only is that a questionable use for a rants thread, but there's a whole forum for Civ VI discussions, including threads debating the relative merits of Civ VI and V (and IV, for that matter), such as https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/should-i-start-with-this-game-or-civ-v.628414.

 

[Thormodr]

Just an all around disaster that thankfully is now in the distant past.

Thoroughly enjoying the subsequent iteration of the game.

 

[Bruhmoment]

wtf is up with the saves on this game
i have 66 happiness and I reload the save and now I have 22 unhappiness. Seriously. What is up with this?

 

[Naokaukodem]

wtf is up with the saves on this game
i have 66 happiness and I reload the save and now I have 22 unhappiness. Seriously. What is up with this?

Ha ha I always believed that there was a problem not with saves, but with happiness in this game. Nobody trusted me, they even despised me. (explaining where comes the happiness uncompletely and saying things like "from now on i don't have to continue because, because... i doesn't worth the cost" or something, and Marbozir (a youtuber) who deleted my messages concerning happiness, for some (weird) reason...)

 

[Bruhmoment]

Ha ha I always believed that there was a problem not with saves, but with happiness in this game. Nobody trusted me, they even despised me. (explaining where comes the happiness uncompletely and saying things like "from now on i don't have to continue because, because... i doesn't worth the cost" or something, and Marbozir (a youtuber) who deleted my messages concerning happiness, for some (weird) reason...)

Marbozir deleted your messages? The hell?
Did the community really not trust you to the point where they even said stuff like that?
But seriously how does the happiness and saves work on this game

 

[beetle]

I have not seen saves/loading effect happiness. I have seen huge, and fairly inexplicable, jumps in happiness from turn-to-turn. So I think that is what is happening. The effect is from Tourism influence being in fews tiers instead of something more incremental. For example, if in one single turn you have two bigger AIs go from Unknown to Exotic against you, that could easily be a double-digit happiness shift on you.

 

[Tiberiu]

But seriously how does the happiness and saves work on this game

I don't know about what could have happened in your example but I do know that the game does not refresh information about happiness immediately. Sometimes barbs pillage a lux and then you repair it and the game still thinks you are unhappy until you do a certain action that triggers the refresh, or after you press next turn.

 

[Bruhmoment]

Although I was with a mod, that's what caused it. I conquered cities and they bug out not having to build any courthouse when annexing. My fault

 

[Thormodr]

Civilization 5 is still crappy after all these years. Lol.

Bring on Civ VII so Civilization 5 can fall to 7th place. 😁

 

[Drakarska]

Civilization 5 is still crappy after all these years. Lol.

Bring on Civ VII so Civilization 5 can fall to 7th place. 😁

Lol, welcome back bubba. Been awhile.
I highly recommend Vox Populi for your Civ V angst. It makes the game a LOT more enjoyable.

 

[Thormodr]

Lol, welcome back bubba. Been awhile.
I highly recommend Vox Populi for your Civ V angst. It makes the game a LOT more enjoyable.

Oh definitely the community bailed out the polished turd that is Civilization 5 and brought it up to a passible game. Ed Beach did the best he could with a crappy foundation.

Still, it is the worst iteration. Civ VI is much better and Civ VII will be as well.

No point in playing that turd. It'd be like playing MOO 3. Lol.

 

[TempusFugit]

Oh definitely the community bailed out the polished turd that is Civilization 5 and brought it up to a passible game. Ed Beach did the best he could with a crappy foundation.

Still, it is the worst iteration. Civ VI is much better and Civ VII will be as well.

No point in playing that turd. It'd be like playing MOO 3. Lol.

Coming from the earlier games I was quite skeptical about Civ 5, especially with all the bad things I’ve heard about it. But when I bought it along with the two expansions on a sale I was immediately hooked from when I booted it up.

The game does have some bad design decisions, but since I often go back and play the older games in the series, that isn’t a major problem for me. The fact that taking or building many cities hurts you, and the global population happiness mechanic was bad design, that was fixed in Civ 6. But Civ 6 didn’t fix the problems with the “carpet of doom” or the lousy AI.

Some things I think Civ 5 did really well was the variation between the various civilizations. Another was the new culture mechanics. Culture victory became interesting and fun in Civ 5. The end-game was also made more interesting with ideologies that shakes up the global stage when they arrive.

In the finished version of Civ 5 diplomacy did also turn out to be a fun aspect of the game. Perhaps not quite as good as the systems in Civ 3 and 4, but a lot better to me than the also interesting but flawed diplomacy system in Civ 6. But it seems like a lot of people didn’t understand the system in Civ 5. Even a lot of fans of the game. This probably results from Firaxis largely hiding the mechanics of it behind vague statements, rather than clear numbers. Rather than having people go look up those numbers on this site, it should have been displayed clearly in the game.
,

 

[Thormodr]

Coming from the earlier games I was quite skeptical about Civ 5, especially with all the bad things I’ve heard about it. But when I bought it along with the two expansions on a sale I was immediately hooked from when I booted it up.

The game does have some bad design decisions, but since I often go back and play the older games in the series, that isn’t a major problem for me. The fact that taking or building many cities hurts you, and the global population happiness mechanic was bad design, that was fixed in Civ 6. But Civ 6 didn’t fix the problems with the “carpet of doom” or the lousy AI.

Some things I think Civ 5 did really well was the variation between the various civilizations. Another was the new culture mechanics. Culture victory became interesting and fun in Civ 5. The end-game was also made more interesting with ideologies that shakes up the global stage when they arrive.

In the finished version of Civ 5 diplomacy did also turn out to be a fun aspect of the game. Perhaps not quite as good as the systems in Civ 3 and 4, but a lot better to me than the also interesting but flawed diplomacy system in Civ 6. But it seems like a lot of people didn’t understand the system in Civ 5. Even a lot of fans of the game. This probably results from Firaxis largely hiding the mechanics of it behind vague statements, rather than clear numbers. Rather than having people go look up those numbers on this site, it should have been displayed clearly in the game.
,

Glo-bull Happiness was a hamfisted attempt to restrain REXing. (Rapid expansion) Civ III (the second worst Civ) had the awful corruption mechanic.

Civ IV and VI had subtler mechanics to restrain REXing. You could easily go bankrupt in Civ IV if you were careless and Civ VI had ever increasing costs of things. Much, much better.

Also, Civilization 5 had the horrendous play to win AI. Civ IV's approach was much better. The AI was there to facilitate your gameplay experience. Not try and act like a human. (Remember the AI rage quitting? Seriously, what a joke! 😣)

Here is a must watch video by Soren Johnson on how AI should be designed:

[C3C] - Report of Soren Johnson (lead designer Civ 3 and 4) about the AI

In the Civ 6 forum the civer Bibor posted a very interesting report of Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ 3 and 4) about the AI, especially in the Civ series. As I think this is very interesting for the players of Civ 3, I post it here, too.

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[TempusFugit]

Glo-bull Happiness was a hamfisted attempt to restrain REXing. (Rapid expansion) Civ III (the second worst Civ) had the awful corruption mechanic.

Civ IV and VI had subtler mechanics to restrain REXing. You could easily go bankrupt in Civ IV if you were careless and Civ VI had ever increasing costs of things. Much, much better.

Also, Civilization 5 had the horrendous play to win AI. Civ IV's approach was much better. The AI was there to facilitate your gameplay experience. Not try and act like a human. (Remember the AI rage quitting? Seriously, what a joke! 😣)

Here is a must watch video by Soren Johnson on how AI should be designed:

[C3C] - Report of Soren Johnson (lead designer Civ 3 and 4) about the AI

In the Civ 6 forum the civer Bibor posted a very interesting report of Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ 3 and 4) about the AI, especially in the Civ series. As I think this is very interesting for the players of Civ 3, I post it here, too.

forums.civfanatics.com

That video is quite long so I've bookmarked it for later. Besides, I fear that it will give me a strong urge to play Civilization 3 again, and I have enough games that I want to play already! While Civ 3 has several things that could be criticized I never found the AI to be one of them, except for being generally dumb of course, but compared to the AI in Civ 6 and 5, it is a genius.

It is interesting how much Civilization fans favorite games differ. I think it is a good testament to how good Firaxis and Microprose/Meier have been at keeping focus on what makes the games good, and of course some luck as well.

I think Civ 3 is the best game in the series, while Civ 5 is number two. I can certainly find several aspects of those games that could have done better, but I don't necessarily think that the most rounded, well-balanced and polished game is the best one. Civ 4 is obviously that in the Civ series, and while it is a magnificent game, it doesn't quite reach up to 3 and 5 for me. (But if you add in mod support, 4 obviously beats 5 to shreds.)

For number 3 it is certainly true that corruption wasn't the best way to restrain rapid expansion. (While also many times better than the Civ 5 approach.) Civ 4 did this best as you mention. But after I read about how corruption works in the game (on this site) I never had a problem with it in the game, and I was able to plan around it. But like many other aspects in many other entries of this series, it should have been explained clearly in the Civilopedia, and not be something you have to actively look for on a fansite to be able to understand. A negative aspect about Civ 3 corruption is also that it is so important for your development that you plan your choice of governments around it. So in the mid game you will either use republic or monarchy, which is as intended, but in the late game you will either stay with republic or choose communism. So neither democracy or fascism are ever very good choices, which is a shame. (Civ 2 got the government balance best.)

I will watch that video with interest later, though I suspect that I will disagree about parts of it too. I actually like both approaches towards AI opponents in theory. (AI "trying to win" so actually an AI that simulates a game opponent and an AI that tries to simulate another civilization/nation state.) Both approaches could be bad if they were taken too far in one direction, but otherwise I like that this series has tried out different approaches. I suspect that I am a greater fan of an AI as a simulation of another civilization, because pretending that I am watching real (alternative) history is something I enjoy a lot with this series. On the other hand I do also enjoy the "competitive" aspect of this series a lot, where I develop grudges towards other civs because of border issues, wonder issues or global diplomacy. Or "friendships" or alliances for pragmatic reasons or just because I want to have a good relationship with a certain Civ.

The advent of the "immortal" leaders was a very good choice of Meier in the first place. While it made the job of the simulation aspect of the game harder (you have to imagine that the leaders aren't really there for the whole game, when in fact they are), it also gave the rival civilizations a personal touch that probably has been important for the series.

 

[Thormodr]

That video is quite long so I've bookmarked it for later. Besides, I fear that it will give me a strong urge to play Civilization 3 again, and I have enough games that I want to play already! While Civ 3 has several things that could be criticized I never found the AI to be one of them, except for being generally dumb of course, but compared to the AI in Civ 6 and 5, it is a genius.

It is interesting how much Civilization fans favorite games differ. I think it is a good testament to how good Firaxis and Microprose/Meier have been at keeping focus on what makes the games good, and of course some luck as well.

I think Civ 3 is the best game in the series, while Civ 5 is number two. I can certainly find several aspects of those games that could have done better, but I don't necessarily think that the most rounded, well-balanced and polished game is the best one. Civ 4 is obviously that in the Civ series, and while it is a magnificent game, it doesn't quite reach up to 3 and 5 for me. (But if you add in mod support, 4 obviously beats 5 to shreds.)

For number 3 it is certainly true that corruption wasn't the best way to restrain rapid expansion. (While also many times better than the Civ 5 approach.) Civ 4 did this best as you mention. But after I read about how corruption works in the game (on this site) I never had a problem with it in the game, and I was able to plan around it. But like many other aspects in many other entries of this series, it should have been explained clearly in the Civilopedia, and not be something you have to actively look for on a fansite to be able to understand. A negative aspect about Civ 3 corruption is also that it is so important for your development that you plan your choice of governments around it. So in the mid game you will either use republic or monarchy, which is as intended, but in the late game you will either stay with republic or choose communism. So neither democracy or fascism are ever very good choices, which is a shame. (Civ 2 got the government balance best.)

I will watch that video with interest later, though I suspect that I will disagree about parts of it too. I actually like both approaches towards AI opponents in theory. (AI "trying to win" so actually an AI that simulates a game opponent and an AI that tries to simulate another civilization/nation state.) Both approaches could be bad if they were taken too far in one direction, but otherwise I like that this series has tried out different approaches. I suspect that I am a greater fan of an AI as a simulation of another civilization, because pretending that I am watching real (alternative) history is something I enjoy a lot with this series. On the other hand I do also enjoy the "competitive" aspect of this series a lot, where I develop grudges towards other civs because of border issues, wonder issues or global diplomacy. Or "friendships" or alliances for pragmatic reasons or just because I want to have a good relationship with a certain Civ.

The advent of the "immortal" leaders was a very good choice of Meier in the first place. While it made the job of the simulation aspect of the game harder (you have to imagine that the leaders aren't really there for the whole game, when in fact they are), it also gave the rival civilizations a personal touch that probably has been important for the series.

Lol. 5 is the worst by a country mile and III is second worst. I still enjoyed III, though.

Anyway, yes, the video is an hour long but well worth watching. Definitely eye opening. 🙂

 

[Naokaukodem]

5 is interesting if you want to be challenged, in Deity for example. 3 is terrible for the challenge, because it forces you to have hundreds of units for attack. But from early game to mid game, it's one of the best IMO. Corruption was just badly designed. (should have took into account the proportion of land owned instead of distance from capital roughly : start in a peninsula or near an ocean and you are screwed in multiplayer)

 

[TempusFugit]

5 can be very challenging on Deity yes and that is good. The AI in that game is not very good at managing their military, but all civ games have their weaknesses. I think Civ 3 is also a lot of fun on the higher difficulties, it is a bit more of a wargame, but I like that aspect about it, and the AI can utilize their troops better than in 5 and 6. Their lack of artillery understanding is a bummer though.

I haven't tried Civ 5 with Voc Populi yet. But I've heard that the AI have become much better, also at military affairs.

 

[¯\_ (ツ)_/¯]

5 can be very challenging on Deity yes and that is good. The AI in that game is not very good at managing their military, but all civ games have their weaknesses. I think Civ 3 is also a lot of fun on the higher difficulties, it is a bit more of a wargame, but I like that aspect about it, and the AI can utilize their troops better than in 5 and 6. Their lack of artillery understanding is a bummer though.

I haven't tried Civ 5 with Voc Populi yet. But I've heard that the AI have become much better, also at military affairs.

I agree with you. I am also looking forward to trying Voc Populi also.