Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[TheMarshmallowBear]

i've never been the one to propely use "army"... lol, I always went for the "Peaceful" ways :/

Which frustrates me because ever since the new patch on Chieftain the A.I has been super aggresive, always declaring war on me because i built few wonders they wanted and few "plots" of land they wanted and now I can't even get out of the fuc**ng war because Napoleon is too darn lazy to actually even attack me and demands two of my cities, dyes and all of my gold -.- re*tard.. so annoying, i'm over the Civ for a while until they god-damn fix the god-damn feautre/glitch/bug whatever it is..... grrr!

Moderator Action: Please watch your language, thanks
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tatran]

Regarding civ differences look at the old C3C system. In C3C each civ had 2 traits (out of 8 possible) and one UU. Traits could radically change aspects of play.

The civ5 defenders forget this every time when they compare civ5 to civ4 and say it has also 18 civilizations to play with.
In civ5 you play as a civ, in civ4 you play as one of the leaders of a civ.
In civ4 vanilla, you'll have more leader choices, 26 versus 18 civs in civ5.
And you play all the civs with a multiple leader differently otherwise you'll wasting the power of their traits.

 

[headcase]

The civ5 defenders forget this every time when they compare civ5 to civ4 and say it has also 18 civilizations to play with.
In civ5 you play as a civ, in civ4 you play as one of the leaders of a civ.
In civ4 vanilla, you'll have more leader choices, 26 versus 18 civs in civ5.
And you play all the civs with a multiple leader differently otherwise you'll wasting the power of their traits.

But there's still only 8 traits, whereas Civ5 has more than 8. They could make it so that in Civ5, each leader has 2 traits, then they could make 300 unique leaders, which is more than Civ4.

Granted, they'd have to rebalance the traits so no combination would be over-powered. (And be "rebalance" I mean "balance", because "rebalance" implies that they are balanced right now.)

No matter how much you like Civ4 otherwise, you must admit the UAs are far less homogeneous in Civ5. No one had anything close to a "friendly forests are roads" UA in Civ4.

 

[Thormodr]

Whatever they did to the game, it doesn't feel like any other Civ game i ever played, i'm not going to pretend i'm clever enough to analyse exactly why i dislike the game as Sulla did, i can't even say i agree with him as i don't really understand what he was saying, but i do know the following as a player:

1. I don't feel like i'm controlling a great nation when i play civ 5 which is what i want from a civ game, i feel like i'm playing a board-game against human players, which is not something i felt in my two other favourite civ's. 2 and 4, and not something i wanted, i hate multi-player, why did my single player have to become like that?

2. The diplomacy angers and infuriates me, it is full of dumb things like a leader hating you even though you save their capital city, it doesn't have decent depth, and it is the major part of my disatisfaction with the game, almost a year on it still hasn't been fixed despite what i see as many rushed and ill-thought out changes, yet the crummy DLC that adds nothing of importance but just more civs keeps rolling on.

3. I find City states to be generic and uninteresting.

4. There are no vassals, no spies, no sabotage, just war to deal with any problems your neighbours throw at you, trade is simplistic and uninteresting.

5. There are so many horribly contrived rules in the game, from indestructible capitals to only being able to build trade routes among your own cities, it all serves to keep reminding me that i'm not leading a great nation, just playing a badly designed board-game against opposition that doesn't even require tact to be dealt with, just the hammer of my army, diplomacy, that's the word i keep coming back to when playing this game, it truly sucks.

6. I don't get the sense of wonder and excitement i got from previous Civ games, again i think that has to do with the game so forcefully making me be a board-game player instead of allowing me to pretend the world is real, being relegated by the game from imagining i was a leader, to being a player on a team.


If i could describe the change i experienced from playing Civ 4 to playing Civ 5 in an abstract manner, i'd say it was like playing with and enjoying lego, and then one day finding that the pieces had been replaced with ones twice the size, had been cut in number and had less types of parts, for me less definitely didn't turn out to be more with this game.

I found myself completely unable to suspend my disbelief and pretend i was a leader of a great nation while playing, because the game kept reminding me at every opportunity that it's trying to be a boardgame, that didn't happen to me with the other civ games.

That's my feed-back one year on, i still regret having bought the game, i've bought games i wasn't happy with before and not been that bothered, the Civ series was a staple series to me for 15 years that i just loved playing, not any more, as far as i am concerned the only thing i want to know now is if civ 6 will be "carrying on the great work of 5" or if they will try a completely different approach, that should let me know if i have any interest left in the series at all.

Edit* almost forgot, the user interface, with so much important info missing, hidden behind a thousand mouseclicks or crammed all at the top of the screen in tiny writing, also sucks.

Double Edit* the high graphic requirements are pretty amazing considering how static the game world is, the units are also too small and hard to recognise without having icons above their heads enabled, i can't zoom in as much as i'd like to either, i guess zooming in closely was too much of a luxury.

Very good post. I can't really argue with any of your points as I feel the exact same way too. It's a large combination of factors that makes the game not fun to play.

You are certainly right about Civilization 5 feeling like a boardgame. The previous Civs felt more like god games where you really felt like you were controlling a civilization.

That was changed for whatever reason and I hope they go back to their roots in the future.

 

[pspboy7]

I completely agree that ranting is inevitable yet sometimes really unnecessary. I don't think most gamers even know why they hate certain games other than the fact they simply couldn't wrap their heads around it or kept losing to the computer or other players alot

However, most players do make good points about Civ 5. The game, while decent enough to play now since its first release, does have a long road to travel before it meets most Civ fanatics expectations in comparison to other Civ games of the past, especially Civ 4, a game which introduced most of the changes in the BTS expansion. The one part that sticks out in my mind is, where the heck did the espionage go? Not eveyone liked it, or even used it, but one would think spying would have made the cut in Civ 5, yes?

 

[Sadan01]

I completely agree that ranting is inevitable yet sometimes really unnecessary. I don't thenk most gamers even know why they hate certain games other than the fact they simply couldn't wrap their heads around it or kept losing to the computer or other players alot

Hmm. I have won a number of times on deity difficulty on Civilization V. By your definition I should love because I have "beaten" the game? It is this reason among many others as to why I dislike the game. The AI is too easy to exploit. Edit - Other players will disagree as they were able to completely "exploit" the AI in prior versions, I'm sure. I would agree somewhat if someone wrote that but with my own playing of prior versions in comparison, it seems far easier to kick the AI's arse in than in prior versions based solely on the change to 1upt. The AI still has no idea and probably never will.

If Firaxis release a proper SDK and DLL(s) then I'm sure the community could make a far better game. Who knows; may be one I could actually grow to like. Until then, Firaxis' past actions have shown they're more interesting in releasing DLC than fixing the game. Oh they're balancing aspects but it isn't anywhere near "fixed" in my mind.

In fact, I am beginning to think it is a lost cause. It is almost 12 months and the game is still nowhere fixed and balanced. Time for the big-boys in T2 to move on to another project I think.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I completely agree that ranting is inevitable yet sometimes really unnecessary. I don't think most gamers even know why they hate certain games other than the fact they simply couldn't wrap their heads around it or kept losing to the computer or other players alot

However, most players do make good points about Civ 5. The game, while decent enough to play now since its first release, does have a long road to travel before it meets most Civ fanatics expectations in comparison to other Civ games of the past, especially Civ 4, a game which introduced most of the changes in the BTS expansion. The one part that sticks out in my mind is, where the heck did the espionage go? Not eveyone liked it, or even used it, but one would think spying would have made the cut in Civ 5, yes?

It's a game of life, of the history of man, and it can't even be bothered to have international trade, which basically fuelled civilization. (How ever you want to represent it:- you have something that we want, we have something that you want, it's stone age)...so never mind espionage. Espionage grew from international trade. It's beyond reasoning to my mind. Dress the game up how you want, but there are so many basics missing, it's like putting perfume on a pig (and hey some folks probably like that, and good for them)...

 

[Tatran]

In fact, I am beginning to think it is a lost cause. It is almost 12 months and the game is still nowhere fixed and balanced. Time for the big-boys in T2 to move on to another project I think.

Yeah, another Titanic.

This was posted at the 2k forum :

Missing CivBucks AGAIN!
I would be really freakin' happy if my Civ Bucks stop disappearing every time there is an update. This is the 3rd time now, and I had 191 or so of them.

Maybe, they should clean the bugs in the company itself first before continuing anything else.

 

[Leif Roar]

If we're going to sum up the problems with Civ V in one word, it's "scope." Civ V just doesn't have it. Compared to earlier Civilization games Civ V feels claustrophobic, limited and timid.

 

[civvver]

If we're going to sum up the problems with Civ V in one word, it's "scope." Civ V just doesn't have it. Compared to earlier Civilization games Civ V feels claustrophobic, limited and timid.

Exactly. I keep trying to get into Civ5 every other month. I hated it on release, but the patches this year have made it at least playable. And it's sorta fun, for about an hour. Then I quickly realize how much depth is lacking.

Basically every game is a balancing act between happiness, gold production and hammer production so you can actually build junk. And it's quite stupid. It allows for zero deviation from the mainstream strategies- you have to build coliseums and find happiness resources early or your cities will suck big time. Whereas is civ4 there were many ways to build your empire- you could over expand, crash your economy and build it back slowly by chopping libraries and running scientists until you researched currency, or you could tech code of laws and whip courthouses, or you could expand at a slower rate, etc. So many options, each game was different and exciting.

We don't even have freakin sliders in civ5. It's like some guy couldn't figure out how to beat civ5 so he decided to hell with the economy, let's make it a watered down war game. Someone above said it feels like a board game- EXACTLY! and it's boring.

One glaring issue I haven't heard anyone mention- the tech tree is garbage. It's so linear, like you can't skip anything because every tech is eventually a prereq. Like in 4 you could skip techs for a looong time and backfill later. It allowed for more variance and it was enjoyable. Do I beeline for gunpowder or take a more balanced approach? Civ5 you can research about 2 techs in line before having to go back and get a prereq. Also the modern area techs provide practically nothing except units.

I'm not really upset I bought civ5, cus $50 ain't that much to me in the long run. But the disappointment is really hard to shake. I quite playing world of warcraft a year ago, I loved dragon age and beat it multiple times, same with mass effect 2, and was *really* looking forward to my next big, sucks me in, makes me stay up til 2am playing, makes me exicited to get off work, kind of game. Civ5 did not deliver and sadly, no other 2011 titles have done it yet for me either.

So basically, I wouldn't give two hoots about civ5 if someone would just release a good game already for this year, but as it is, civ4 is still my favorite and most played title.

 

[bitula]

So basically, I wouldn't give two hoots about civ5 if someone would just release a good game already for this year, but as it is, civ4 is still my favorite and most played title.

Aint Heroes of Might and Magic 6 about to be released this year or 2011? That would be a good candidate to play with until Civ 6 is out...

 

[lschnarch]

Back after 8 months. Hi to everybody

Last time I've played was Dec 28, last year.
Out of curiosity, I thought "let's have a look in which state the game is now" and tried to start the game again yesterday evening.

Lots of updates of course. Well, that was not really unexpected.
After all updates had been installed and the integrity of the game files had been checked, I tried to start a game only to learn that Civ5 wouldn't be able to run in 1920*1080.
Actually, it wouldn't be able to run in any fullscreen resolution.
Thanks to have to update!

So, today I completely deinstalled the game and Steam.
Thanks to having bought a retail box, the new installation was quite quick and - surprise, surprise - now fullscreen was possible, even in 1920*1080.
That much to the quality of the updating processes, may it have been Steam's or Civ's fault, I don't care. It is just a mess.

Now, I started a new game: Emperor, huge map, continents, standard number of nations and City States for that kind of map.
I drew France and happily settled where spawned.

Some turns later I met Ramkanghaeng (whatever this Sir is called), followed by Bismarck, Julius and Genghis.

Social policies have changed considerably, as I noticed.

Some turns later Ramkang declared war on me. My "army" consisted of 2 warriars and an archer (former scout). I had two cities, whilst Ramkang had four cities.
So, nothing to worry about, as I thought.

Ten turns later, Bismarck (both are my closest neighbours) joint the war against me.

Now, after having had war for like 50 turns, I have razed one of Ram's cities, got 2 more due to peace (plus a bonus ressource, plus money, plus plus plus...), have killed around 25 units of him and Bismarck, have an army of 2 horsemen, 1 chariot, 3 archers, 1 warrior (1 was lost due to me forgetting that cities can shoot over forests ) and am still fighting Bismarck, whose forces are on full retreat.
Ah, and not to forget: I have captured like 3 or 4 workers of Ramkang, who happily has sent them next to my units.

Lection learned: don't care about your military, let them attack you. The AI is still, even after almost one year since release, completely unable to fight any war.

Even worse, as the worker captures prove, the AI has completely no clue what to do with any of their units at all.

Really, playing this game on Emperor reminds me of playing Civ4 on Settler level.

 

[Becomedeath]

Good thread on the go about this already dude, check it out.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=436612&page=2

 

[lschnarch]

Honestly, at the moment i've got the impression that the combat "AI" has got even worse.

Hiawatha has joined the war against me and tries to frighten me with hords of workers entering my borders (nice, as I need some).
In addition, he tries to hunt down my horsemen with triboks.

I mean, come on! Such things have been critized from the beginning onwards and it still takes place?

 

[The_J]

[...]

Moderator Action: Threads merged.

 

[lschnarch]

Oh, my bad.

Sorry, completely forgot that criticism of the game is not that much welcome anymore at 2KFanatics.

Moderator Action: Public discussions of moderator actions are not allowed. Please use PMs if you'd like to complain about a mod actions, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aristos]

Really, playing this game on Emperor reminds me of playing Civ4 on Settler level.

EXACTLY.

I said that many times, earning me a huge lot of BS, including some localized versions of censorship, but as much as it may hurt some people's self-esteem, it is what it is: a dumbed down version of one of the best strategy titles in the industry.

"Yo, dude, I can like, you know, beat that Civilization thing in Emperor and stuff...! Z'up with that dude?"

 

[headcase]

If Firaxis release a proper SDK and DLL(s) then I'm sure the community could make a far better game.

 

[headcase]

a dumbed down version of one of the best strategy titles in the industry.

Talking about Civ4 sans mods?

 

[lschnarch]

Originally Posted by Sadan01 View Post
If Firaxis release a proper SDK and DLL(s) then I'm sure the community could make a far better game.

Maybe better, but not solve the core problems, of which I think the 1upt is the biggest and most obvious one as it triggers almost any other problem, too (except for the completely corrupted diplomacy - that maybe could be improved by having access to the dll).