Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Rivaldo]

Dear Kaos,

thank you for your reply, nevertheless I cannot agree with most of the things you are mentioning....

DIPLOMACY: I cannot explain simple things in this, as why when you are invited to join a war and you replied "yes" then couple of turns later the AI player denouncing you!
Also I cannot understand how an AI player becoming aggressive after a declaration of friendship.
The argument regarding the exploitation of diplomacy it's correct but this is why the AI is asking constantly for favors and gradually becomes aggressive. This is the alteration of strategy when you are dealing with an AI. for me, they should work a little bit with the algorithm regarding backstabbing (which indeed is a mimic human behavior) but I think the developers took it too far away and everything (regarding diplomacy) went wrong. by all means you can never refer to diplomacy feature with "admiration". Actually if you see the articles in this forum you will realize this is No.1 weakness of the game

RELIGION: Why is it omitted? I think the main reason is politics (actually political correct) not to refer on this issue (I'm talking about the developers) Otherwise I can't understand the reason for replacing it. All the features involved were already there in previous civs.

HAPPINESS: tell me about it....when you need at least 30 rounds to shift the politics (even with....giant courthouse!) it's already late...or should i say dead....

UNITS SWIMMING: It's unrealistic. the naval warfare is dead since you cannot protect your units. the invasion is dead case since i simply destroyed the AI army with 4....galleys! it each round i had only to cross over the units at the sea and in couple of turns i killed 15 units without effort....

UNEXPLORED AREAS IN THE YEAR 2080: You know this is the main argument for resources. if you need the resource in the latter stages of the game, simply put your settler to discover...Australia and you have everything you need! oil-uranium-happiness resources!
plus it's unrealistic too....barbarians in the 2080? rarely you can discover a lost tribe in Amazon these days....not a whole continent!


CLEVER THINKING: When I was attacked by a much stronger AI player who threatens my own existence....then any assistance is welcomed! i did it (open the borders to an enemy simply to cover me from the other giant army) and allowed him to assist me. the AI did the same for me (when I was attacking).....

 

[Tatran]

I've seen plenty of games in Civ2 with a lot of open, unexplored and perfectly settleable space in them even by 2080.

Typical civ5 player behaviour using very weak and inadequate arguments to make their point.
No wonder the civ series is dying with human kind degenerating.

First, the civ2 AI only settles on plains and on grassland.
Second, civ2 has much less turns to play, just like SMAC; something like 300-400 turns.
Third, civ2 settlers cost 1 or 2 food (depends on the government type) + 1 shield when active.
Fourth, civ2 has no worker unit type, only settlers can improve tiles.

 

[dexters]

Not sure why you need to result to name calling.

On Topic.

The strategy forums provide lots of good information on those who want to understand Civ5 diplomacy.

As a strong advocate for diplomatic depth since Civ3, I always welcome more options and more things to do, so it would be disingenous of me to say I'm satisfied with Civ5 diplomacy.

That said, the things people here generally report as broken tend to be caricatures of problems that existed, if it existed at all, at release and the current diplo model is vastly different from that.

More generally, reading these posts, it sounds like the rants and complaints are from someone who got their diplomatic ass kicked playing Civ5 like Civ3/4 because they can't understand why the AI is mad at them for settling right next to their capital. I mean, Civ4 AI would just submit and turn into a vassal after while! Or was genuinely surprised at an AI like Egypt becoming hostile after they completed several wonders in a row. Or that Ghengis Khan and Alexander broke their word of friendship and continually declares war on them, denying them of their peaceful wonder-hogging 'set' starts with 2 swords for defense. Pro-tip, starts are a lot more varied in Civ5 ceteris paribus.
as AI personalities are very strong. Location matters, who you roll as your rivals matters.,

Most of these complaints don't attempt to understand the why, most gave up after 1 or 2 games or are basing their comments on very old games they played on outdated builds. That the Civ5 diplomatic lexicon is much different from the previous game is probably the culprit of the frustration is understandable. But continuing to mischaracterize it being broken for the lack of trying is just plain disingenous.

Diplomatic interactions, As far as I'm concerned, and aside from a few blindspots in AI behavior is a fixed issue.

Continuing to rant about it like it is broken is not helping your rcause. And as much as I respect people's right to hold their own opinions, spreading outright falsehoods as valid criticisms does a great deal to immediately discredit positions being taken.

 

[Rivaldo]

Not sure why you need to result to name calling.

On Topic.

The strategy forums provide lots of good information on those who want to understand Civ5 diplomacy.

As a strong advocate for diplomatic depth since Civ3, I always welcome more options and more things to do, so it would be disingenous of me to say I'm satisfied with Civ5 diplomacy.

That said, the things people here generally report as broken tend to be caricatures of problems that existed, if it existed at all, at release and the current diplo model is vastly different from that.

More generally, reading these posts, it sounds like the rants and complaints are from someone who got their diplomatic ass kicked playing Civ5 like Civ3/4 because they can't understand why the AI is mad at them for settling right next to their capital. I mean, Civ4 AI would just submit and turn into a vassal after while! Or was genuinely surprised at an AI like Egypt becoming hostile after they completed several wonders in a row. Or that Ghengis Khan and Alexander broke their word of friendship and continually declares war on them, denying them of their peaceful wonder-hogging 'set' starts with 2 swords for defense. Pro-tip, starts are a lot more varied in Civ5 ceteris paribus.
as AI personalities are very strong. Location matters, who you roll as your rivals matters.,

Most of these complaints don't attempt to understand the why, most gave up after 1 or 2 games or are basing their comments on very old games they played on outdated builds. That the Civ5 diplomatic lexicon is much different from the previous game is probably the culprit of the frustration is understandable. But continuing to mischaracterize it being broken for the lack of trying is just plain disingenous.

Diplomatic interactions, As far as I'm concerned, and aside from a few blindspots in AI behavior is a fixed issue.

Continuing to rant about it like it is broken is not helping your rcause. And as much as I respect people's right to hold their own opinions, spreading outright falsehoods as valid criticisms does a great deal to immediately discredit positions being taken.

all the things you are mentioning about diplomacy are quite theoretical. Still cannot understand why-instead of trying a lecture style reply- don't try to be specific.By praising diplomacy feature without any justification or criticism (or should I say that "it sounds like the rants and complaints are from someone who got their diplomatic ass kicked playing Civ5 like Civ3/4 because they can't understand why the AI is mad at them for settling right next to their capital" is more a laughable argument than a phrase my friend. Now if you think that by vague descriptions you can make serious arguments, then......

 

[dexters]

all the things you are mentioning about diplomacy are quite theoretical. Still cannot understand why-instead of trying a lecture style reply- don't try to be specific.By praising diplomacy feature without any justification or criticism (or should I say that "it sounds like the rants and complaints are from someone who got their diplomatic ass kicked playing Civ5 like Civ3/4 because they can't understand why the AI is mad at them for settling right next to their capital" is more a laughable argument than a phrase my friend. Now if you think that by vague descriptions you can make serious arguments, then......

Well, I can't be here explaining how every game might turn out. I pointed the strategy forum as a great resource and have on numerous occasion, reffered to bibor's diplomacy by the numbers as a primer on understanding the personalities of the AI.

I understand this is a rants thread, but I don't think the intent was to turn this into a partisan Fox News style operation where people disconnected from reality spout of their version of what is real to feed the 'base'.

This attitude of 'we are right' plus the lack of effort to engage, flippant comments, insults, and lies are what I take issue with.

That this thread has been running on fumes in the past 12 months is pretty self evident.

 

[Neomega]

Well, I can't be here explaining how every game might turn out. I pointed the strategy forum as a great resource and have on numerous occasion, reffered to bibor's diplomacy by the numbers as a primer on understanding the personalities of the AI.

I understand this is a rants thread, but I don't think the intent was to turn this into a partisan Fox News style operation where people disconnected from reality spout of their version of what is real to feed the 'base'.

This attitude of 'we are right' plus the lack of effort to engage, flippant comments, insults, and lies are what I take issue with.

That this thread has been running on fumes in the past 12 months is pretty self evident.

This thread was made for a reason. So stop trying to mischaracterize it. And get out. It is a rants thread, not an argument thread.

You knew this was a rants thread when you started reading it. That means it is not a thread to argue about civ V, it is a thread to rant about it.

reported.

 

[bruntfca]

Really? Sounds like the Chinese Civilization to me.

Moderator Action: Warned for PDMA.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Haha, very funny dude

 

[The_J]

You knew this was a rants thread when you started reading it. That means it is not a thread to argue about civ V, it is a thread to rant about it.

Moderator Action: This.
Please use this thread only for ranting, not for anything else.

 

[charon2112]

Man. I go away for a year or so and the rants thread grows to 85 pages!

yowza.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Typical civ5 player behaviour using very weak and inadequate arguments to make their point.

<snicker> Typical antifanboy: fire shots first, get facts never.

No wonder the civ series is dying with human kind degenerating.

First, the civ2 AI only settles on plains and on grassland.
Second, civ2 has much less turns to play, just like SMAC; something like 300-400 turns.
Third, civ2 settlers cost 1 or 2 food (depends on the government type) + 1 shield when active.
Fourth, civ2 has no worker unit type, only settlers can improve tiles.

So? Why it happens in Civ2 wasn't my point, merely that it *has* happened in previous civ games - unlike his claim.

Dear Kaos,

thank you for your reply, nevertheless I cannot agree with most of the things you are mentioning....

DIPLOMACY: I cannot explain simple things in this, as why when you are invited to join a war and you replied "yes" then couple of turns later the AI player denouncing you!
Also I cannot understand how an AI player becoming aggressive after a declaration of friendship.

It's called a 'backstab.' Civ4 players abuse it all the freaking time in Immortal/Deity level play; building the AI to pull the same crap is just levelling the playing field. Or rather - in keeping with the new location - it would be if they did it *right.* The idea itself is fine, but the implementation needs work.
(Yes, thank you for giving back the resources I traded for cash up front and inviting me to come smash your army for free xp while taking the diplo hits yourself...)

The argument regarding the exploitation of diplomacy it's correct but this is why the AI is asking constantly for favors and gradually becomes aggressive. This is the alteration of strategy when you are dealing with an AI. for me, they should work a little bit with the algorithm regarding backstabbing (which indeed is a mimic human behavior) but I think the developers took it too far away and everything (regarding diplomacy) went wrong. by all means you can never refer to diplomacy feature with "admiration". Actually if you see the articles in this forum you will realize this is No.1 weakness of the game

Like I said: I didn't like the way it worked out either, but at least I could see what they were trying to do.

RELIGION: Why is it omitted?

To save something for the expansion? Budgets got used up working on everything else, and they had to wait for sales & dlc cashflow before they could finish up on that? It's a cute fluff-feature that can actually wait in favor of getting real gameplay functional?

Only the insiders know for sure, and they're probably under NDA.

I think the main reason is politics (actually political correct) not to refer on this issue (I'm talking about the developers) Otherwise I can't understand the reason for replacing it. All the features involved were already there in previous civs.

Features involved were present in exactly one previous Civ - 4. And that implementation wouldn't have really meshed very well with any of the changes to diplomacy, border-expansion and cultural influence - it would have been a trivial effect at best on any of that, and ergo very much shortchanged as a feature.

I'm not even happy about it coming up in G&K. Honestly, I suspect it's just going to be One More Thing the best players massively exploit while the AI and newbies fumble around with uselessly. Another edge on top of massive existing edges, that ultimately just makes SP even easier than it is and MP even harsher on those trying to break in.

(other comments not suitable for 'rants' thread ommitted.)

CLEVER THINKING: When I was attacked by a much stronger AI player who threatens my own existence....then any assistance is welcomed! i did it (open the borders to an enemy simply to cover me from the other giant army) and allowed him to assist me. the AI did the same for me (when I was attacking).....

Know what's even more clever?
Side with the much stronger AI, dogpile the poor bastard in the middle and let the big guy blow his troops softening up cities for you to kill-steal...

Doesn't work so well if you're the poor bastard in the middle, though.

Moderator Action: Please do not ignore moderator warnings.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kaosprophet]

This thread was made for a reason. So stop trying to mischaracterize it. And get out. It is a rants thread, not an argument thread.

You knew this was a rants thread when you started reading it. That means it is not a thread to argue about civ V, it is a thread to rant about it.

What, I can't rant back?

 

[Neomega]

What, I can't rant back?

No you can't. this thread was made because people were complaining that there were too many threads bashing Civ V. so the rant thread was made so people could rant, and people who did not want to read the rants could go elsewhere. It is clearly stated it is for rants ONLY. If you an not accept that, you should not have continued reading.

If you love Civ V, post it in the civ V raves thread.

And three posts up, the moderator has made that clear.

 

[Kaosprophet]

No you can't. this thread was made because people were complaining that there were too many threads bashing Civ V. so the rant thread was made so people could rant, and people who did not want to read the rants could go elsewhere. It is clearly stated it is for rants ONLY.

Yes, and?
I asked if I could rant about the rant. That's not a 'rave' about the game, it's... well, just another rant . Exactly like the thread says.

If you an not accept that, you should not have continued reading.

If you love Civ V, post it in the civ V raves thread.

What if I just hate people who make up utter nonsense to rant or rave about?

I'm still undecided on the game, in the process of giving it a 'second chance' here. I appreciate the criticisms that are based on solid facts or genuine issues, but I do draw issue with those that are based on air or complete revisionism. (Ditto for raves.) So where do I go to address those?

 

[Neomega]

Yes, and?
I asked if I could rant about the rant. That's not a 'rave' about the game, it's... well, just another rant . Exactly like the thread says.



What if I just hate people who make up utter nonsense to rant or rave about?

i don't care what you hate, you are in the wrong thread.

I'm still undecided on the game, in the process of giving it a 'second chance' here. I appreciate the criticisms that are based on solid facts or genuine issues, but I do draw issue with those that are based on air or complete revisionism. (Ditto for raves.) So where do I go to address those?

not here

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Please heed moderator warnings in future.

@Kaosprophet- please don't feel the need to use the rants thread if you just want to argue with those who are using it for its intended purpose. Please restrict your posts in here to rant posts about the game.

@Neomega- please restrict yourself to reporting posts. We will get to them when you report them. Replying doesn't make it stop (as is evidently the case here).

 

[Rivaldo]

Moderator Action: Please heed moderator warnings in future.

@Kaosprophet- please don't feel the need to use the rants thread if you just want to argue with those who are using it for its intended purpose. Please restrict your posts in here to rant posts about the game.

@Neomega- please restrict yourself to reporting posts. We will get to them when you report them. Replying doesn't make it stop (as is evidently the case here).

honestly guys, the Moderator is right.
we are not trying to convince each other here. And we are not trying to be aggressive. There is no point for doing that.
We have some issues-we are all fans of this game-and we are welcoming any specific solutions for things we are dealing with.
So please if you have any suggestions please post it. By simply saying "backstabbing" for diplomacy issues and "read the strategy forum" for other features, is not specific. Therefore I would like to take part to a helpful forum. I certainly hope so for future post from other members of this thread.

 

[lollibast]

The mere existence of this thread gets me rantaholic. How am I supposed to find anything useful about something that plagues me in a 86pages thread?

To the point. I think playing on highest difficulties is pure chances. It is impossible to win in immo/deity without gamey play, settingstweaking or amazing luck.
The reason? AI bonuses are so vast you can only keep up by using smart military tactics (ranters call it abusing AI stupidity) to slaughter AI units, which costs the AI a great part of their pimped power.
As soon as there is an AI out of reach, i.e. on another continent or swallowing up its neighbors on the far side of your continent it gets too big too fast to ever compete for victory. Have even seen this on emperor difficulty from time to time.
AI reaching modern era in 15xx and nothing to do about it is a practical joke and waste of time, imho.

 

[PhilBowles]

Civ4 was the first (and, prior to the G&K expansion, *only*) civ game to even take a shot at implementing it, and the series was already a classic well before then. So it's not that important a feature to gameplay.

From what I can gather, most of the most ardent opponents of Civ V began the series with Civ 4, so only have that as a reference point. People who've seen it change through multiple iterations have more of an idea of what the core game has always focused on and the way the mechanics have changed to accommodate that, rather than seeing mainly the mechanical differences between the two most recent versions.

It's different, is all I can say. I prefer the old model myself, but from watching some Let's Plays on youtube I can safely say that it is entirely manageable and my distaste is just a personal preference. ICS or world conquest while maintaining +20 happiness is entirely doable, with the right social policies & infrastructure.
(Hint: courthouses in conquered cities are important.)

I miss having some kind of city-level management mechanic, as dull as it could be to spam happiness buildings and/or garrison units in every city, because happiness would always decrease at the same rate everywhere in your empire however you managed the city. However, older Civ games were largely lacking macro mechanics other than the slider, and I generally like the implementation of happiness in Civ 5 - it interacts well with policy choice, 'tall' vs. 'wide' strategy and resource availability/trade/CS alliance behaviour, which to me makes it feel more strategic. It's much more within your control both the rate at which happiness accumulates, and the particular tools you use to mitigate it. Going back to it (as I have playing Civ 4 recently), the older system feels restrictive, not helped by the need to shoot for specific technologies to unlock particular civics, which likewise forces you into one of a small number of strategies.

One thing that's often neglected in discussions of Civ 5 happiness - which tend to revolve around managing unhappiness - is the flipside: happiness management is now tied to golden ages. You can play to keep unhappiness at a minimum, building happiness buildings as you need them and expanding as much as possible, but you can also play to maximise excess happiness (as I did a few days ago, with a lot of success until my civ's focus on culture victory left it open to a late game attack) with a few 10+ pop cities (I had four 13 pop cities, with 10-15 excess happiness at any given time), and so get more non-GP (and consequently longer) golden ages. It's also a nice nostalgia nod to the way 'We love the king' days used to work in the first two games (but, sadly, without the build-your-own castle - don't know why they dropped that in Civ 4).

Take a peak at the actual graphics used. Nobody is 'swimming,' they just removed the logistical juggling of having to build your transports and load up your army - now the transports are just assumed to be there for your troops when necessary. Simpler, yes; but even many the hardcore Civ4 fans complain about how much of a hassle intercontinental invasion is before the Industrial era. Everyone wanted simpler on this front, and while this was maybe going to far you can't actually fault them for taking a shot at giving us what we've been asking for for ages.
(AI still sucks at it, though.)

I think it's a definite improvement as a system, and for that matter realistically it was always a bizarre notion that an army carries with it enough materials for ammunition, food, armour and weapon repair, and come to that reinforcement and training of new recruits, but can't fashion ships - historically, of course, until the Renaissance armies would construct their own ships (admittedly, they'd also construct their own siege engines, yet catapults are still separate units).

EDIT: Saw the latest moderator warnings after posting this - I don't seem to have a Delete option, so feel free to remove this post if it's deemed not ranty enough...

 

[Freesmog]

That this thread has been running on fumes in the past 12 months is pretty self evident.

Good riddance if the fumes ever run out . I wonder if there was a conspiracy by creating this Rant thread to contain all of the fumes to quicken its death.

What, I can't rant back?

I actually don't mind if you argue back at all, it only adds to the popularity of this thread, and before they created it there was plenty of argumentation (and still is here and there).

The mere existence of this thread gets me rantaholic. How am I supposed to find anything useful about something that plagues me in a 86pages thread?

Would be nice if the Rant thread was broken up into subthreads.

 

[Rivaldo]

From what I can gather, most of the most ardent opponents of Civ V began the series with Civ 4, so only have that as a reference point. People who've seen it change through multiple iterations have more of an idea of what the core game has always focused on and the way the mechanics have changed to accommodate that, rather than seeing mainly the mechanical differences between the two most recent versions.


what is really impressive regarding the really old players/fans of civ series, is that instead of explaining the flaws of the current game and point out the problems/issues, they have a tendency to justify everything "for the sake of old times"....
it's like having a fatherhood love....
for example, I haven't fount at least one decent answer to the problem of diplomacy. But strangely, the old fans don't feel this is a problem for the rationality of the game. Instead, they are happy because "they saw what the developers were trying to do..." But, is this the case after all? is the intention enough?

my belief is that especially the old fans should be the first here to enlighten the others or they should be more demanding because they can really see there favorite game to losing the grasp....