1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization 5 Rants Thread

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ori, Dec 3, 2010.

  1. Bhoy

    Bhoy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland
    So...

    I haven't played this awful game in 2011 yet, has the patching made it much much better or do I still stick with CIV4 BTS?
     
  2. Rub'Rum

    Rub'Rum Hates acronyms

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,582
    Location:
    Québec
    I just came back, I'm liking it enough now, didn't like it much back when I played it in September/October 2010. The balance of the game seems to have improved dramatically.

    However if you have problem with the core game mechanics (like 1UPT), I don't see why you'd want to come back.
     
  3. headcase

    headcase Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I too thought it was lousy before, I like it ok after the July patch. I do like it more than BTS but only because I'm moving on from BTS anyway. With mods like Better AI, PIG, and any mod with the word "fall" in it, BTS might be the better game but Civ5 is more fresh for me right now (and will hopefully be improved with more mods as well, on top of the early efforts already out which I'm told are awesome).

    I thought the AI diplo was bad, now I kind of like the diplo but not a fan of the immense :c5happy: bonus the AI receives, which enables whichever one that plows through their neighbours to get a huge number of cities early on, increasing its production, growth, gold, science, culture, great people, happiness, and anything else I missed, while you're struggling to keep your ungrateful citizens from ceasing production because you had the nerve to puppet the civ next to you that declared war on you, but you never get anything useful from that puppet, because you're at the mercy of the governor who will generally go with a gold focus, which is actually good since the maintenance of your units and roads are so much more than the AI that you'll need it, but it means it will never grow into a useful city unless you annex it, which throws your citizens into further rebellion, while another empire has 20 cities and more happiness than you, has enough gold to buy every city state 10 times over but only buys a few to be sporting, and declares war on you for hundreds of years, occasionally demanding all of your cities, but never sending more than one incapable unit at you, and then, all of a sudden, when you're going for the space victory against all odds, and your (at this point) CS-hogging rival steadfastly refuses to build the UN despite having 5 more votes than needed for victory, that's when he declares peace, because he knows it will take both his force and yours to defeat the warmongering nuclear menace Gandhi, who has already declared war on you both.

    But besides that, it's a pretty cool game after the patch.

    And to be fair, that last part played awesome and ended awesome.

    Spoiler :
    You can get Gandhi to say "My words are backed with nuclear weapons!"


    This is the rants thread, right? Good.
     
  4. steve1962

    steve1962 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Location:
    Port Orange, FL
    I just gave it another go having pre-ordered it last year.

    Made myself play it for a while but realized I really didn't find it very enjoyable.

    At least it inspired me to load up CIV4 again which I am enjoying a lot.

    Seems clear to me patches are not going to fix the inherent problems of CIV5.
     
  5. Rupe

    Rupe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    North Carolina
    If your issue is combat balance or mechanics then progress is being made. If you are looking for diplo or immersion I am afraid that ship has sailed. Look elseware.
     
  6. bitula

    bitula Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    386
    First of all (1) is not a supposition but a fact and it has nothing to do with firaxis balancing efforts its about the inherent disadvantage of 1UPt concept itself. If you do not understand this I could put it in a more simple manner.
    1) Using 1UPT with many units is bad and boring.
    This is all what (1) is about. And (1) is the problem, (2) is just a way of fixing. And it seems you even agree yourself, since you use the word "problem" in your argument so you implicitly agree with that there exists a problem, and the problem is a factual problem. Now for you to better understand. If you play with say 5 or 6 - which really means that your whole civilization has altogather such a small amount of units - units the problem is minor, so I do not disagree with you on that the game is most enjoyable when playing with a small amount of units. Now for you, it seems this is not a disadvantage, however several people like to amass units and create a large army. But because of (1) this is not possible - its technically ofcourse possible, but inevitably will make the game boring, so you must not do that. And so here I have to repeat, that THIS IS ONLY IN Civ5, Civ1, Alpha Centaury, Civ4 had no such problems, you could build large army and still enjoy playing the game. Now without (2) you must restrict yourself from doing this, which is in itself bad, so (2) in initself doesnt help anything, because its aint better also. Now regarding (2) which is easily curable by any modder, not like (1) which is impossible to cure without the source dll - so again, please note, the main problem is (1), not (2) - you seem not to understand indirect balancing. In case from A follows B from B follows C from C follows D, D also follows from A so you cannot oversimplify balancing by including just direct causes. But again, this is not the point the point is (1).

    Sure, I agree with that, note I do agree with some of your remarks, though they are unrelated to the argument (1).

    Again because of existence of indirect balancing explained above you are incorrectly oversimplifying matters. In some cases, you may fix something absolutely seemingly unrelated to make Granary useful without touching the Granary itself.


    I think here you completely misunderstand me, the maint point was that within several dimensions of growth of empire Civ5 makes an exception to armies, which in Civ 5 must be intentionally kept small. There was no such thing in other Civ versions mentioned here. Growth of other dimensions may be similar, however I also experienced that building many building is not an advantage, so altogather growth is less encouraged in Civ5 than in other Civs mentioned here, though this latter can be modded whereas the first one (army) cannot because of (1).
     
  7. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Very well said. 1UPT has wide ranging repercussions that affects the whole game.

    Since this was likely a preliminary design decision, it was too late to change course midway through development when they had to have seen how bad the decision was in retrospect. So, they kept pounding that square peg into that round hole.

    When the source code is released, a systematic scrapping of the system should happen. Once that's done, modders can start to rebuild the game to play as the other Civs have always played. :)
     
  8. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,520
    Location:
    Madrid
    I came back and am finally enjoying the game.
    Diplomacy is absolutly not fun, but at least it isn't annoying anymore. And the rest of the game is pretty good.
     
  9. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,520
    Location:
    Madrid
    Good summary. But I'll add that the game is pretty fun now. I stopped playing it some time after release, and tried to come back a few times with no success. Now I can enjoy it.
     
  10. Sadan01

    Sadan01 Conical Flask

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    640
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    So what changed from Civ V then to Civ V now? Why couldn't you get into it to begin with?

    After doing more thinking about it, I think my root dislike(s) of Civ V are 1UPT, a lack of depth (all games basically play out the same way - build military and use the AI's complete lack of tactics against itself) and due to these two reasons, I find the game fundamentally boring. There is practically no difference in each of the various games of Civ V I've played - at least not compared to ANY prior version of Civilization where your starting location really sums up the theme of the game.

    Sure, some games I might choose to be on a pangaea or continents or islands, but I still win the same way by using practically the same tactics each time. The AI plays the same each game - you inevitably go to war with them no matter what. It feels like half a PC and half a console game, by demonstrating its lack of depth compared to prior games.

    So Kaltorak, I'm very interested as to why you couldn't get into it to begin with and now why you can? To me it seems that ultimately, not much has changed besides some balancing, bug fixing etc.
     
  11. Rub'Rum

    Rub'Rum Hates acronyms

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,582
    Location:
    Québec
    I'd say one of the disadvantages of Civ 5 compared to the previous iterations is indeed the lack of flexibility and adaptability that was in the previous ones. With social policies that are permanent choices especially, you sort of engage yourself in a specific path and changing direction is not advisable. Most games kind of end up being a short exploration to figure out who is around you and what's going on and what the land looks like, then you take a decision of how to win and you mostly stick with it... With the possible way out of the UN. You kind of did this in Civ 4 too, but it was more flexible to change. Especially with the social policies system as I said.
     
  12. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    bitula:

    I highly disagree on nearly every point, because I have a vivid, once photographic memory. I remember playing Civ 1 quite vividly, even now, as well as Civ 2, 3, and 4. There was a time as recently as late Civ 4 before BTS where I was in a discussion where I said that I had upwards of 60+ units and no one believed me.

    I distinctly recall a period in CivFanatic history where community sentiment was that Nationhood was a bad Civic. Drafting was used primarily defensively, and it was considered a weak mechanic, on the whole. It was only when mass drafting was more commonly practiced that the true value of Nationhood was more generally appreciated.

    As a matter of fact, small numbers of units compared to Civ 4 standards in the norm in Civ type games, not the rule, because early Civ games required you to move the units one at a time, even though they were in a stack.

    Civ 5's 6 to 10 unit optimum army size is small for a Civ game, but not that small comparably speaking. It's only small compared to Civ 4, whose hundred units stack are, I would say, themselves a problem.

    You could, but it would be a stupid way to go about fixing a Granary problem. If you touch a fundamental mechanic to fix a single building problem, you only compound your problems because you affect everything else!

    Fixing a fundamental problem only works if the Granary problem is just a Sentinel Event, and is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. In the case of 1UPT, unit costing IS the issue. They have to be more expensive because there has to be less of them. You do NOT fix that by adjusting tile outputs, because then you also affect the buildings! And Research! And Growth!

    It's stupid to do it that way, and I can't imagine how we can think that Shafer would do something that stupid when it's self-evident to non-game devs like ourselves that if the problem is unit costing, you adjust unit costing, and not tile outputs.

    In fact, it's also obvious to me that this is not what happened at all. Buildings are reasonably priced in Civ 5, whereas units have comparatively been jacked in hammer cost.

    You're out of touch with current Civ 5 mechanics. There is no disadvantage whatsoever to building Markets, Banks, and Stock Exchanges, so long as you can afford the hammer cost, as they not only have no maintenance, but supply both base Gold and a Gold multiplier on top.

    Lighthouses and Granaries have been buffed to the point where it's plausible to have a Lighthouse or a Granary supplying +8 food for 1 gold, which is very nearly the equivalent output of Hanging Gardens: a super-potent growth Wonder. City Growth has been evened out by the Aqueduct, which retains 40% food after city growth and is available from the Classical Era tech Engineering.

    Between the more generous gold outputs and the increased growth, it becomes more and more desirable to pass the happiness/growth curve by supplementing tech, wonders, and policies with buildings such as Colosseums and Theatres and Circuses.

    And to build all that essential infrastructure, you will want production boosting buildings, which aid production-rich site with production multipliers, but also aid production poor sites with base hammers.

    Finally, lower tier buildings are no longer the most powerful buildings available. It is desirable to at least get to Universities because those contain the first Specialist slots.

    So how now, having built all this considerable architecture, can we possibly say that it's not desirable to have many buildings? This doesn't even take account for Culture buildings, which you will want to build so as to expand your city to at least the second ring fully - a necessity since Cities can no longer be built less than 3 hexes apart.
     
  13. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    I can't agree. In Civ4, you chose generally, one set of optimized Civics and a plan for engaging to get there through play, generally facilitated by either Bureaucracy or Representation conjoined with the most able Civics from each tree as dictated. You didn't change very often because each change was a costly 5 turn Anarchy cost.

    Your Civ evolved from Civic to Civic until you got to the best ones, and you generally did not "switch back" unless that was part of the overall plan to begin with.

    Changing plans is still possible in Civ 5. I've switched to Culture (of all Vics) a number of times when I thought that Dom would be too tedious, and Science would take too long.
     
  14. Rub'Rum

    Rub'Rum Hates acronyms

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,582
    Location:
    Québec
    Maybe it's just with the flavor of it then? There's something bland about the policies as they are. It felt like a choice before. Now it seems I don't even remember the names of any of the policies, their effect being kind of detached from the name in many cases (or at least I have to try to figure out why it is that policy X does Y). It also feels weird to have all of the policies that you selected as actively giving you their bonus at the same time... Like delving into the freedom tree then in the autocracy tree and having all of this active at the same time.
     
  15. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    You can't have Freedom and Autocracy active at the same time. FYI.
     
  16. Rub'Rum

    Rub'Rum Hates acronyms

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,582
    Location:
    Québec
    Epic fail. I thought the only opositions were piety/rationalism, along with "choose only one of the bottom left 3". Well anyway, that was just a side note.

    EDIT: Gah I get it, my brain confused Liberty and Freedom. So you can take liberty AND autocracy.
     
  17. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    You can be a theocracy and yet have free religion at the same time. :crazyeye:
     
  18. Rub'Rum

    Rub'Rum Hates acronyms

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,582
    Location:
    Québec
    I wanted to give specific examples but I figured people would start launching into rant/research about examples around the world of things like this that actually exist in Rambutanland (they are deleting their messages as we speak).

    EDIT: Now they are deleting "But XYZ modern first world country isn't "Rambutanland" and it has this example"
     
  19. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    For what it's worth, I find it hard to remember the names of the Policies, too, but that's only because there are so many of them, and they're so varied. The only reason we remember the names of key Civics in Civ4 is because the choices were so few. There is no choice on whether or not to adopt the Slavery Civic most of the time. The question is when, not if.

    The choice of initial Social Policy in Civ 5 is more interesting than that, and that's with Liberty being insanely powerful right now. Once it's become more reasonable, the choice will be more interesting.

    There are 60 choices of Social Policies in the game right now, all of them plausible. There are only 25 Civics in Civ 4, and 5 of those are no-bonus trashy starting Civics, so there's really only 20.

    Of those 20, only between 2 and 3 of every choice of 4 is really viable in general, so we have, what? 15 generally functional Civics? It goes without saying that it's much easier to remember 15 mechanics than it is to remember 60, though I am starting to get the hang of Social Policies to the point where I can name them. It just takes a bit of playing.


    Thornodr:

    It's useful to think of Social Policies as social mores or conventions rather than as existing nominal practices. You could take Theocracy and then take Free Religion. All that means is that your Free Religion grew out of a Theocratic tradition, and your people retain the sensibilities and awareness of theocratic practices that they carry with them into Free Religion.

    It's all the more suggestive of this because you can only take Reformation if you already have Organized Religion, and can evolve to Free Religion after that. Obviously, you can't have a state of Reformation if there's nothing to Reform, but at the same time, it doesn't necessarily follow that Reformation and Organized Religion are taking place at the same time, as named conditions or situations.

    You can continue to find whatever faults you want with the game if you want to. There are no shortage of faults in any Civ game if you choose to view them antagonistically.
     
  20. Rub'Rum

    Rub'Rum Hates acronyms

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,582
    Location:
    Québec
    Well, it's been said many times before, but the social policies system kind of feels like a different tech tree. I'm guessing that doesn't help differentiate the system and give it personality, since it plays relatively like the techs.
     

Share This Page