Civilization 5 Rants Thread

I think it is very unfair to have only one Rants thread! :gripe: This thread now has about three times as much views as all other current unstickied threads on page 1 of the Civ 5 General Discussion forums together - and therefore this thread becomes very difficult to survey.
 
I think it is very unfair to have only one Rants thread! :gripe: This thread now has about three times as much views as all other current unstickied threads on page 1 of the Civ 5 General Discussion forums together - and therefore this thread becomes very difficult to survey.

:agree: a rants sub-forum where one can read about the topics they care about the most would be appreciated I'm sure. I love reading a good rant but only on the topics I also rant about.
 
I completely agree with the above :goodjob:

Though I can identify to some extent with many of the issues in this thread, I mainly feel the need to rant about performance.

WHY DOES IT RUN SO GODDAMN SLOW EVEN ON A QUITE GOOD PC AAAAARGH :mad: :mad: :mad:

On the difficulty level thing, I sort of agree with Brichals BUT on the basis - as you mentioned - of using house rules. Specifically: 1) never sign RAs, as well as it being unbalanced the whole way it works just annoys me, and 2) never sell irrelevant open borders to the AI for cash, exploity and stupid.

On that basis, I play prince/monarch on Civ 4 BtS and king/emperor on Civ 5 so Brichals' 1 level thing holds true for me. The difference of course is I need house rules to enjoy Civ 5. Without them I have actually won one Civ 5 game on Deity but it was a tedious grind and I have no wish to ever do it again. Whereas in BtS I am quite happy to abuse, for example, Slavery as much as I can because it makes sense to me (as a gameplay mechanic) and the AI can also get at least some use out of it, so fair enough.

EDIT: hmm yeah actually been playing BtS + BUG/BetterAI so long I forgot BBAI is at least 1 maybe 2 levels higher than standard BtS, so yeah maybe there is a bit more than 1 level difference between Civ 5 and standard BtS. But definitely not Emperor = Chieftain or whatever was originally claimed, that is an exaggeration.
 
I completely agree with the above :goodjob:

Though I can identify to some extent with many of the issues in this thread, I mainly feel the need to rant about performance.

WHY DOES IT RUN SO GODDAMN SLOW EVEN ON A QUITE GOOD PC AAAAARGH :mad: :mad: :mad:

On the difficulty level thing, I sort of agree with Brichals BUT on the basis - as you mentioned - of using house rules. Specifically: 1) never sign RAs, as well as it being unbalanced the whole way it works just annoys me, and 2) never sell irrelevant open borders to the AI for cash, exploity and stupid.

On that basis, I play prince/monarch on Civ 4 BtS and king/emperor on Civ 5 so Brichals' 1 level thing holds true for me. The difference of course is I need house rules to enjoy Civ 5. Without them I have actually won one Civ 5 game on Deity but it was a tedious grind and I have no wish to ever do it again. Whereas in BtS I am quite happy to abuse, for example, Slavery as much as I can because it makes sense to me (as a gameplay mechanic) and the AI can also get at least some use out of it, so fair enough.

EDIT: hmm yeah actually been playing BtS + BUG/BetterAI so long I forgot BBAI is at least 1 maybe 2 levels higher than standard BtS, so yeah maybe there is a bit more than 1 level difference between Civ 5 and standard BtS. But definitely not Emperor = Chieftain or whatever was originally claimed, that is an exaggeration.

Without abusing the AI militarily, I'd put Civ 5 difficulty around 2-3 levels apart from Civ 4 BTS with BetterAI/BUG. W/abusing the AI militarily, I'd increase this disparity to 4 levels (but you have to remember that there's one less difficulty level in Civ 5 which makes level comparison harder to guesstimate). I think there'd be less discrepancies between IV and V if the AI would just expand at a decent rate in V.
 
If the expansion reworks combat in the form of sub-level tactical map, Im buying it. Otherwise I cant see how would it improve anything. Cant be that difficult to implement: Just add an n x n separate grid screen with tiles of random terrain types averaged to what is in the vicinity of the collision point on the main map. This could fix everything + an option to exclude city states and puppeting. Btw, puppeting makes the game sort of auto-play, why not just starting with just only AI players and watching the result...
 
Civ 5 was so much disapointing that it made me weary of what they will do to x-com. This iteration of the franchise is a high treason to my gaming empire. Furious at them, worst enemy, I demand tribute!
 
Does anyone remember the last game that Firaxis published which was decent ? Quite a while ago...
 
If you want a reason to weep for the AI check out this picture that my Caravel just happened to walk past:

Spoiler :


It makes me so sad when I see the computer do something like this. I guess Russia REALLY likes their snow and tundra tiles.
 
It makes me so sad when I see the computer do something like this. I guess Russia REALLY likes their snow and tundra tiles.

He had no other place to settle around. But still...he could at least protect their settlers. Which difficulty level is this? At emperor or higher it's pretty rare to see things like that.
 
He had no other place to settle around. But still...he could at least protect their settlers. Which difficulty level is this? At emperor or higher it's pretty rare to see things like that.

It's on King, and I disagree, there is plenty of unclaimed land :p

The problem is that the AI isn't smart enough to realize that its not working. It seems to follow this pattern:

Build Settler => Choose Spot and Send there, no exceptions => Settler gets captured => AI acts like Settler never exists => AI wants another city, builds a Settler =>

Obviously it would be much harder to make the AI act like a human in cases like this.

Build Settler, send to spot, gets captured => Next time, send a unit with Settler (assuming you don't just reclaim the settler yourself)

I've taken a few classes now in Java and realize how difficult it would be to program an AI to act like this compared to how it currently acts, which is much simpler logic. The way it is implemented, the AI does not have to ask itself any questions such as What are the chances a barb camp is there?, or did my last settler get captured when I sent it there?

Mainly I'm annoyed because the AI is wasting gold or production on these Settlers, and may partly be why she is 3rd last ingame.

The picture is more comical than annoyed but I couldn't find the funny screenshots thread =/

Edit: Also, why would anyone even build a city on that island? It's basically useless.
 
The picture is more comical than annoyed but I couldn't find the funny screenshots thread =/

Edit: Also, why would anyone even build a city on that island? It's basically useless.

Here :)

Well this is one more reason why the game have been launched too fast.
 
I've seen that before a coupel of times. Needs fixing for sure but don't have an idea how. Maybe make it so that after 1 AI settler has been stolen then it is impossible for another to be stolen (only 1 at a time). It is unreasonable to expect the AI to be able to make sensible decisions, would be nice, but I think it might be too late to work on that.
 
If the expansion reworks combat in the form of sub-level tactical map, Im buying it. Otherwise I cant see how would it improve anything. Cant be that difficult to implement: Just add an n x n separate grid screen with tiles of random terrain types averaged to what is in the vicinity of the collision point on the main map. This could fix everything + an option to exclude city states and puppeting. Btw, puppeting makes the game sort of auto-play, why not just starting with just only AI players and watching the result...

Is it possible that my problem is solved!!!!!? :
Ive just read here on the forums:

"And other people might be interested in that the development of a mod with a tactical combat map is making quite some progress. Not yet finished, not even playable, but probably the most ambitious project around with a promising future."

A small problem: its for Civ4 :lol::lol::lol:

I hope this mod will finally make Civ5 obsolete by beating it by far at its very core so called "feature".
 
You know, the thing I loved most about Civ4 was actually how moddable it was. Some of the player-made mods were amazing, and I'm of the opinion that RFC was better gameplay-wise than normal Civ4 itself. One of the things I was most excited about for Civ5 was the prospect of a new RFC for it. Even after my immense dislike for Civ5 sunk in, I was still hoping maybe Rhys could make a good and playable game out of it.

And fast-forward to today, there's been no news or updates on Civ5 RFC for well over a year now. In fact, there are hardly any game-changing player mods out there, which is a far cry from the experience with Civ4, and probably won't be any until they release the game code. For what was supposedly the "most moddable game in the series", this is pretty embarrassing.
 
You know, the thing I loved most about Civ4 was actually how moddable it was. Some of the player-made mods were amazing, and I'm of the opinion that RFC was better gameplay-wise than normal Civ4 itself. One of the things I was most excited about for Civ5 was the prospect of a new RFC for it. Even after my immense dislike for Civ5 sunk in, I was still hoping maybe Rhys could make a good and playable game out of it.

And fast-forward to today, there's been no news or updates on Civ5 RFC for well over a year now. In fact, there are hardly any game-changing player mods out there, which is a far cry from the experience with Civ4, and probably won't be any until they release the game code. For what was supposedly the "most moddable game in the series", this is pretty embarrassing.

I think they will come. They need to release the code first apparently.
 
Why is it that the years pass in different units, like at the beginning 150 years pass and it takes like 14 turns to build a worker! That's like 3 thousand years! OMG dudes! Also how are ranged units supposed to fire, 20 000 kilometres?! Seriously this is crazy!

Moderator Action: Merged with the rants thread.
 
It's sacrificing realism for gameplay, which is definitely a good thing. I understand the frustration though, I've often thought about if archers and other current ranged units got their range removed, for realism's sake.

That would make for some terrible gameplay, though: Why would you ever build an archer then?

Edit: This was in response to a "minor annoyances" thread. Got merged.
 
for me, a long standing follower of civ series, the civ 5 in general is a disappointment.There are few things I used to enjoy in past series and it seems now that all gone with the mainstream attitude of the latest civ design.
For players that would enjoy the intellectuality of the civ (as a whole masterpiece concept) the following items are made me (or forced me ) to leave the game....

DIPLOMACY: this feature was practically a joke initially. I was waiting eagerly the forthcoming patches to correct it. It is simply impossible to follow rationality if an AI player suddenly turns against you (without reason). So without this feature, the game became a roulette. There is no strategy if you don't use diplomacy. And subsequently there is no game-plan....

RELIGION: I can understand the developers for having a hard time to cope with religion matters as there is a lot of sensitivity and probably they thought it is better off. However, a strong weapon of humanity is the religion issue. Diplomacy, coalitions, brotherhood and vital tank-thinking. Unfortunately the world is made of religions and this path is extremely important feature.

HAPPINESS: Off course it's important but still cannot understand when the AI player conquered the whole continent to still have 20+ happiness while I could not follow simply because when I conquered a city or two, to experience -15 happiness and automatically everything halts! I simply cannot follow the logic of this feature...

UNITS SWIMMING: Just imagine to invade via sea to another continent and having 35-40 units stand alone, without any protection, swimming! This is hilarious! Let alone the tiredness of using 40 mouse-moves in each round just to move to the next tile....where is transportation?

UNEXPLORED AREAS IN THE YEAR 2080! In the previous civs, the open spaces are fully covered and the game was very competitive. When I reached year 2080, I fount out that the whole Australia continent (and Indonesia also) was empty! how can this possible? don't ask me.....

CLEVER THINKING: In my last game of civ 4 I had a war with an AI player and in order to invade I had to pass through another enemy player which was also in war with him. Despite the fact that we had rivalry since I made a request to open the borders he immediately gave me a path! That's what I call intelligence!!!!

in general the game became a fun for new users (which they con't mind the policy and plans) and I feel that the core idea of the game has been sacrificed for a more naive, commercially looking ideas....

Moderator Action: Merged with the rants thread.
 
@Rivaldo I like Civ 5, but I'm a relative newcomer. Your point about DIPLOMACY is dead on. AIs are SO unpredictable its ridiculous. I gotten to the point where I won't play against Rome or Aztecs. Winning is mostly about getting a favorable starting position rather than skill for the average player. Winning is also about following the right steps, whether they make any sense to you or not.

The Civ 5 supporter would say this is the way the game is, so learn how to deal with it. This is a good arguement. So you have to decide if this game is worth investing so much time in.
 
Top Bottom