Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Andulias]

Shhhh! Be quiet, or Big Bad Mod will infract you for publicly discussing a mod action! I know, been there, done that ^^
One does not discuss The Law, one Obeys

The_J is not so bad really, but some of the other drones here...

Sorry guys, but I've heard in the past golden phrase:
"Think for yourself, question authority" ... and that's why I've got so many infractions back in the day when Civ5 got out

Ah, and by the way, this whole scheme "say sth negative about Civ5 = rant = sweep it under the carpet into one thread" is silly and hypocritical but what can you do, 2K need their publicity... Thank goodness that Amazon reviews are not like that... Yet...

People have said plenty of negative things on the Civ 5 forums, they have also backed them up with reasoning. Writing a long post without any actual argumentation and constructive criticism has always been redirected here because guess what? It's a rant.

I think you are trying to twist things here.

 

[Guardian_PL]

People have said plenty of negative things on the Civ 5 forums, they have also backed them up with reasoning. Writing a long post without any actual argumentation and constructive criticism has always been redirected here because guess what? It's a rant.

I think you are trying to twist things here.

Have you by any chance been here back in say December 2010? In any case, start reading this very thread from the beginning. You'll notice plethora of thoughtful, constructive posts, with beginnings of an interesting discussion brutally ripped apart by mods and thrown here, to hopefully die. People would try to continue discussion, even when exiled into "The Rant Thread" but soon new inmates were being brought in, cutting everything into pieces.

I don't think I'm trying to twist things here. This is a place where negative posts about Civ5, however constructive they might be are being swept in order to be forgotten.

 

[Andulias]

Have you by any chance been here back in say December 2010? In any case, start reading this very thread from the beginning. You'll notice plethora of thoughtful, constructive posts, with beginnings of an interesting discussion brutally ripped apart by mods and thrown here, to hopefully die. People would try to continue discussion, even when exiled into "The Rant Thread" but soon new inmates were being brought in, cutting everything into pieces.

I don't think I'm trying to twist things here. This is a place where negative posts about Civ5, however constructive they might be are being swept in order to be forgotten.

I have in fact, I have been lurking for many a year, but didn't join back then because, well, at launch CiV sucked and I sure as hell didn't want to spend my time writing on a forum for a game I didn't like. It wouldn't take me more than several seconds though to check the rest of the board and see that people right now are writing plenty of both negative posts, which lead to some interesting discussions, as well as positive ones. One has to wonder why the negative ones haven't ended up here by your logic. I am sure it was done back then to some extent to handle the huge traffic and flood of topics that discussed the same exact things. Now that is hardly the case, yet you use present tense.

And do keep in mind that ranting about how moderators handle the forum isn't in any way smart, constructive or even on topic, so we better stop while we can

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Civ5 rants thread = rant about Civ5, not about the moderation.

 

[mintegar]

negative posts,

Well, the AI has always sucked in civ games (and prob. most other games too). So i think this thread doesn't qualify in the sense of "civ5 sucks way more than civ!5".

Now that is hardly the case, yet you use present tense.

I think most people who think civ5 is deeply flawed in many ways (which is opinion and you can't really proof) respect mod decission (ok granted we have no other choice that this forum should be for ppl who like the game and just don't post.
That's why you'll find few examples now.

 

[lollibast]

I think most people who think civ5 is deeply flawed in many ways (which is opinion and you can't really proof) respect mod decission (ok granted we have no other choice that this forum should be for ppl who like the game and just don't post.
That's why you'll find few examples now.

Why do you need to proove the apparent? Would you discard a statement like "walking on your hands instead of your feet is a flawed concept of movement" as opinion also?

If I liked the game and saw it teared to shreds on the forums I for sure would post something to defend it, but that might be just me.

As to the topic: Any rants on G&K yet? Or would you ranters want me to belive you never bought it ?

 

[gps]

As to the topic: Any rants on G&K yet? Or would you ranters want me to belive you never bought it ?

No, sorry, no qualified rants here. Haven't bought it yet. No interest in doing so until it's very cheap. I would not call the five bucks I spent on Vanilla totally wasted - but it's also great to see that it makes sense to keep the rants thread up and running. The profound and solid criticism here effectively stopped me from wasting 30 bucks on the game when it was new for exactly the right reasons. AI sucks, city states suck and 1UPT sucks - and I am still grateful I was warned in due time! Keep up the good work!

 

[salty mud]

No, sorry, no qualified rants here. Haven't bought it yet. No interest in doing so until it's very cheap. I would not call the five bucks I spent on Vanilla totally wasted - but it's also great to see that it makes sense to keep the rants thread up and running. The profound and solid criticism here effectively stopped me from wasting 30 bucks on the game when it was new for exactly the right reasons. AI sucks, city states suck and 1UPT sucks - and I am still grateful I was warned in due time! Keep up the good work!

While I'm not sure about the AI, this is just wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; there is no feasible way any one could prefer the massive stacks of doom in Civ IV to the 1UPT system in Civ V. City States bring an interesting diversion to the game also, an element absent from Civ IV that can sometimes come in very useful.

 

[gps]

It's not a matter of opinion; there is no feasible way any one could prefer the massive stacks of doom in Civ IV to the 1UPT system in Civ V.

Kind of pointless statement, don't you think? I am living proof of the contrary and if you're looking for more you should have no trouble finding them. I've never really played or enjoyed any hex/1UPT wargame stuff, even twenty years ago when they were really hip and en vogue, and I sure won't start now. It does not appeal to me in any way and is just boring and pointless. If 1UPT had been in Civ 1 I would not be here today.

City States bring an interesting diversion to the game also, an element absent from Civ IV that can sometimes come in very useful.

I don't want interesting diversion to the game, I want a kind of historical accurateness, which city states don't provide and actually undermine. For me it does not make any sense to have two different state entities which act and react totally different and follow completely different rules. In IV there were big and small states, depending on how succesful they played - not on some enforced nonsense rule prohibiting more than half of the acting entities to expand or found cities. And the way buying city states allows you to win DV - is just ridiculously cheesy way beyond any AP cheesyness in IV.

 

[salty mud]

So you prefer putting all of your army onto one tile, and the enemy putting all of their army onto another tile, and then rolling a dice to see who's victorious at the end? That's not fun, that is boring, not to say unrealistic. Realism is what you want, isn't it? That's what you mention about city states anyway.

 

[lollibast]

So you prefer putting all of your army onto one tile, and the enemy putting all of their army onto another tile, and then rolling a dice to see who's victorious at the end? That's not fun, that is boring, not to say unrealistic. Realism is what you want, isn't it? That's what you mention about city states anyway.

You don't have to stack ALL of your units, but at least you can.

Putting all of your army on a carpet, and the enemy putting all of their army onto another carpet, and then rolling a dice to see who's victorious at the end? That's not fun, that is boring, not to say unrealistic.

Point noted, discarded and sent back to the Civilization Fanboy Thread.
Why is the discussion always turning towards "CIV SoD's sucked so much that it exceeds all thats bad about CiV together"

Btt: Oh I'm running out of rants badyl, gotta get my hands on G&K

 

[gps]

So you prefer putting all of your army onto one tile, and the enemy putting all of their army onto another tile, and then rolling a dice to see who's victorious at the end? That's not fun, that is boring, not to say unrealistic. Realism is what you want, isn't it? That's what you mention about city states anyway.

From a point of view of a statesman / king / ruler it is. Or do you thing the tank platoon commanders in Desert Storm had instructions directly from George W. himself to make sure they positioned themselves ahead of the artillery? I started playing Civ right after Railroad Tycoon and Civ to me mostly appeals due to the reasons RRT did - and if you have some background knowledge you should know there's no war in RRT. I have no proble fighting a war in Civ if it makes sense or the AI forces me to do so - but warfare sure is not the reason why I play and enjoy the Civ games. So yeah, producing the bigger stack and marching it through enemy territory taking cities in Alexander-the-Great-style is enough warfare from my point of view...

 

[salty mud]

It sounds like you may be playing the wrong game then, since warfare is such an intrinsic part of civilisation. I played Railroad Tycoon and it was a great game, but it couldn't really be compared to Civ in any way.

 

[gps]

It sounds like you may be playing the wrong game then, since warfare is such an intrinsic part of civilisation.

Sorry, does not compute. Why should I stop playing the games that have exactly the right amount and way of warfare to please me??? You might recall my first few posts where I said I don't like the way warfare is presented in V. Well, I hardly play V. I like how warfare is presented in IV and III and so on, so why on earth should I stop playing them??? And I guess after 20+ years of playing and enjoying the franchise I'd say I am entitled to have a vague idea of how this game is meant to be played...

 

[salty mud]

I didn't mean civilisation as in the game series, I meant as in... human civilisation. Each to their own, I respect your differences, I just honestly cannot see how someone could prefer Civ IV warfare to Civ V.

 

[gps]

I didn't mean civilisation as in the game series, I meant as in... human civilisation.

How about research, opening up ressources, trading, exploration, diplomacy, espionage, city development, building wonders, making decisions about your gouvenment, spreading religions, founding corporations, expanding cultural influence spheres, etc. Also all part of human civilization, also all valid game mechanics to gain an advantage over your opponents and ultimately win the game. Maybe it's you who's playing the wrong "game", if you see warfare as the most intrinsic part of it...

Each to their own, I respect your differences, I just honestly cannot see how someone could prefer Civ IV warfare to Civ V.

Well, you were the one who felt it necessary to disagree with me here in the rants-thread. I did not ask you to...
And I also think none of my replies was disrespectful in any way. I tried to explain my position, sorry I could not make stick. But in the end that's your problem, not mine...

 

[ohioastronomy]

While I'm not sure about the AI, this is just wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; there is no feasible way any one could prefer the massive stacks of doom in Civ IV to the 1UPT system in Civ V. City States bring an interesting diversion to the game also, an element absent from Civ IV that can sometimes come in very useful.

I have to wonder if you have actually played Civ 4. The Civilization series has developed a balance - in technology progression, city development, victory conditions, and military. Civ 5 started with a rigid concept - no stacking - and the numerous problems in the game stem from this terrible choice.

The lack of stacking doesn't just change the combat model. It requires that things be slower to build, with fewer things to increase city power. It forced design changes to make terrain less valuable (and by extension to make cities more generic). The tech tree was made linear and the starting positions were made identical. Trade and war weariness were erased. And, because the designer really wanted a wargame, the AI was made aggressive and unpredictable, and most peaceful victory conditions were effectively disabled. I've played all 5 Civ games, and this one is absolutely the worst by a very wide margin.

In terms of the combat, all Civ games have had problems in their combat model. Civ 4 did indeed permit players and AIs to generate too many units. However, there are solutions less extreme than no stacking - and the no stacking algorithm generated a huge number of problems. The mechanics of moving large numbers of pieces becomes tedious, and you have anomalies like neutral pieces blocking roads in the middle of nowhere. The scale for combat is a complete mismatch with a grand strategic design.

But the biggest issue is that the AI is inept because it is simply too difficult to program proper tactics. By comparison, the AI in Civ 4 could be a real challenge because the computer could simply overwhelm you with superior firepower. Civ 5 therefore fails an essential test of a single player game - a proper degree of challenge. The fans tend to be people who struggled to do well in other versions but find themselves doing much better now, and if they enjoy it that's great. But the technical problems with this version are real and significant.

If there is any consolation from the Civ 5 disaster, it's that the game has changed combat models in every version. Hopefully the new one they come up with will be more balanced, and future versions will be able to elaborate in creative ways on the stripped down Civ 5 base.

 

[Scooter1]

I'll just chime in with a quick reply: I held off on getting the game due to posts like the above, little did I know that for me at least, Civ 5 is far superior to prior games.

Civ 4 is a great game but in retrospect often boils down to a race to the most units. Civ 5 has an entirely new tactical level, and it seems possible to win with smaller empires. On the higher difficulties it is more than hard enough.

Just my 0.02, thanks

 

[DrewBledsoe]

How about research, opening up ressources, trading, exploration, diplomacy, espionage, city development, building wonders, making decisions about your gouvenment, spreading religions, founding corporations, expanding cultural influence spheres, etc. Also all part of human civilization, also all valid game mechanics to gain an advantage over your opponents and ultimately win the game. Maybe it's you who's playing the wrong "game", if you see warfare as the most intrinsic part of it... [snip]

Agreed completely.

I just have to state again, that when I heard there was no trade between nations, I just had to shake my head in partial (but not completely unexpected) disbelief, and realise Civ V wouldn't be for me. I won't go off on a long historical ramble, but suffice to say, most wars have been fuelled by religion and trade arguements. Foreign trade has shaped human civilization from time immorial, possibly more than any other aspect. It's given nations a reason to ally, a reason sometimes to go to war, and more often a reason NOT to go to war.

Whoever designs Civ VI (if there is one), please let them have at least a modicum of historical interest and knowledge. Civ VI should be about producing a great Civilization, and everything that goes with it, not a war game that all are just `playing to win`.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I think most people who think civ5 is deeply flawed in many ways (which is opinion and you can't really proof)

Actually you can prove whether something is flawed or not, because it is an objective decision set. The kind of proofs needed would be things like, "is the game playing as designed?" (Nyet, even now that they've nerfed every single strategy that Shafer doesn't like), or "how buggy is the game?" (very at start, and even now there are elementary bugs in the gam), or "has it been properly tested?" (not a chance, otherwise they would have found the incompatibility issue between 1UPT and strategic level empire management which is game breaking), and about 100,000 different things which contribute massively to the unplayability of Civ 5 as a strategy game.

respect mod decission (ok granted we have no other choice that this forum should be for ppl who like the game and just don't post.
That's why you'll find few examples now.

No this forum should be for people who are fans of the series who want to talk about the series, what is good with the games what is bad with the games, and when a turkey comes out trash it completely. If you want to go back far enough into the archives, you can see the absolute different approach taken towards all the criticisms of Civ 3 and it's two expansions where free discussion was allowed of the game and all its many flaws and bugs.

But unfortunately the site sold out, despite not needing to, when Civ 5 was announced and has been drinking the corporate kool-aid ever since on it.