New to the forum and this thread, so this may be an out of date post to respond to, but:
Dislike:
1) completely opaque diplomacy
2) bad tactical AI (really bad)
Agreed - the two really key problems, I feel. Also, where has the age-old diplomacy network screen gone? It's a lot easier and quicker to identify relationships that way than with a list, and I'm sure city-states could have been incorporated into the graphic.
3) no health (this was a neat governor on city pop. growth in civ iv)
If anything I prefer this, and it has to be seen in the context of the rest of the game - in Civ V population, rather than number of cities, is the dominant factor in production - extra pop in the capital has much the same effect as an extra 1 pop city, so it's more limiting to constrain growth, and indeed there are more food-producing improvements and no tile-working restrictions that would be hit hard by restoring health. Population is also no longer taken into account for diplomatic victory, so you can't spam your way to victory any more.
But fundamentally, health as a mechanic limited strategy - there were a few very limited ways to deal with it, and they required the same actions and techs for everyone. Civ is fundamentally a strategy game, and contrary to popular belief management is not synonymous with strategy. Health was a prime example: something that forced you to manage it, but which didn't offer any strategic flexibility in how you did so, and indeed by forcing a particular tech route for at least part of the game limited the strategies you could employ.
4) no city maintenance cost or corruption (this limited number of cities in earlier versions of civ)
I'd forgotten corruption altogether. Agreed, that was a good mechanic, and one tailor-made for limiting/altering with a policy branch. City maintenance, not so sure. Again removing restrictions on city numbers, like those on pop growth, allows you to choose between the two depending on strategy. Building maintenance is still in the game, and the more cities you have the more buildings, so there's still an effect which forces a trade-off. It's just the base maintenance cost that's gone.
5) civilization-wide happiness (liked the civ iv model better)
Undecided on this - I think it's a matter of personal preference rather than something either game approached better than the other. Personally I'm happy enough with the 'macro' focus of Civ 5 away from individual city management towards overall empire management.
6) no replay function after winning (and lame victory screen)
One of my all-time favourite aspects of Civ was the timeline view where I could watch each civ's territories expand and contract throughout an accelerated version of the game. Yes, I'd like that back - watching actual replays, not bothered.
7) Downloadable *paid* content; especially charging for map packs.*
In principle I don't object; what I mind is cynically leaving things out of the base game so that they can be added later (such as maps and scenarios - by all means add new ones in DLC, but there are *no* scenarios in the base game, and real-world maps shouldn't need to be added).
8) No-stacking (you should at least be able to stack 2 units).
Didn't Civ 1 actually have a 3-unit-per-stack limit? I think stacking simply doesn't work with the way the combat system now calculates things. I do prefer non-stacked combat personally, and don't think allowing a second unit to stack really adds anything.
9) Removal of religion (some of my best civ 4'ing was starting a jewish crusade as germany
).
I'd like *a* religion mechanic back. I don't want the Civ 4 religion mechanic back. It was too fundamental to gameplay, the exclusive religions forced you to tech to them very quickly or, if you missed the boat, you had to hope you were in range of a religious Civ whose faith could spread to you by random chance.
10) Total dumbing down of the whole game; screwing over the hardcore players (us) and giving in to the mainstream.
I don't know if that qualifies as constructive criticism... I'm not sure what 'mainstream' that would be - I really don't think there's a computer gaming community out there clamouring "Make Civ more like a board game!", and it doesn't obviously resemble any gaming genre currently in vogue. Rather it's turned from a god-sim-inspired game with the emphasis on simulation to something resembling strategy board games - it's appealing to a different niche market, not to a mainstream (the last thing 'mainstream' computer gamers would go for is a simplified combat system, for a start).
Phil
I'd be okay with tech trading being gone if Research Pacts were less "one size fits all SURPRISE!!!NEW TECH!!!"-ish. Any nuance or complexity in them would make me a happy camper, but as-is I find myself pinin' for the fjords tech trades.
To be honest I'd prefer both, and I'd also make research agreements a rather later development - after all it's a far earlier development to show someone how to make this newfangled round disc you're sticking on boxes to make them roll than it is to have a formalized academic culture than can collaborate on developing new research. It would also make sense for a research agreement to be conducted to pursue a specific research topic (i.e. you both want to collaborate to develop Computers, with the result that both civs get the same tech more quickly and can research it while still being able to pursue other techs as normal).
Hate the fact that I still can't set up a system wherein one city makes food and another makes production and the two support each other. That was achievable waaaaaaaay back in the days of Civ1 and Food Caravans, and it annoys me that it's never returned.
Wasn't it possible with harbours in Civ 2 or 3? Yes, that would be a good addition.
Phil
My biggest beef with the game is the diplomacy. The AI just has no sense of it. One turn they will want to offer me a pact of cooperation. I mis-click on accident and then ask them if they want one. They say no it's not in their best interest. Another example: Gandhi will come asking if I want to join him in a war against Elizabeth, I say no because I don't feel like getting in a war. 1 turn later I will ask Gandhi if he wants to go to war against Elizabeth and he says "No, we've already been through this before, the answer is still no."
I feel there are major flaws with diplomacy in Civ V, but in fairness this one was true of all earlier versions of Civ as well (I didn't play Civ IV with the expansions that much - I understand the AI was massively improved then, so maybe it didn't happen as much with that patch).
Phil
Here's what I hate.
[capsrant_on]
WHO THE HELL WAS F*&$^@ STUPID ENOUGH TO FORCE YOU TO MAKE EVERY DAMN UNIT HAVE ORDERS! LIKE I GIVE A DAMN ABOUT A STUPID WORKER THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO. WHY DO I HAVE TO FORCE THROUGH 10 UNIT SLEEP COMMANDS EACH TURN!!
MORONS!!!!!!
[/capsrant]
This is so annoying. Quite seriously, when I started playing this version (on Warlord since I hadn't played a Civ game for years), I really thought this and the giant bubble notifications were just for the tutorial levels, because the interface really does make you feel as though you're playing a tutorial.
How many turns back did you go? Many times, you'll see the AI set up a dogpile 10 turns in advance, when they sign that "Give me 10 turns to get ready" pact with each other. You see a chain denouncement of multiple civs against you on the same turn? Caution, dogpile ahead...
Go back 11 turns, try your avoidance strategy, and report back if you wanted a fair test.
Hmm, as bad as the AI is, I haven't run across that yet. The war I'm in actually made some sense - Babylon declared war after I settled a city near them, and offered peace as soon as their invasion failed. I'm now repeatedly refusing peace offers (no strings attached, I just want to pursue the war...) in our second round of hostilities since I have a bigger army and am hitting their capital.
(or 2K Games who I feel are most responsible for this disaster)
