Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Navelgazer]

UPDATE: Apparently moving on to completely eradicate Temujin by liberating his City States has made Elizabeth love me now. So it was just the capital capture that pissed her off. Even though I gave it to her.

 

[beetle]

FWIW, game is working as designed. Taking cities == warmonger hate. Liberating == erasing warmonger hate. Gifting cites == no impact on warmonger hate. Next time, keep Karakorum as puppet. Or gift to Persia's closest rival. Also, trading below value does not help diplo relations. Unsolicited gifts help, but only a little bit.

 

[chuckh89]

Next time, keep Karakorum as puppet.

So,..puppeting="zero" hate acquired,..And it is only when you annex that you receive "Hate"

???

That doesn't seem right Beetle, maybe I am missing something...please give some more details.

 

[beetle]

So,..puppeting="zero" hate acquired,..And it is only when you annex that you receive "Hate"

No, that is not what I said!

Taking cities == warmonger hate... Next time, keep Karakorum as puppet.

My point is that conquering Karakorum get you the hate, so you might as well get good benefit from it. Selling Karakorum at below market rate is very weak play.

 

[Navelgazer]

Thanks, beetle. I was mostly experimenting to see how it would play out, but yeah, I wouldn't do it that way again.

 

[PhilBowles]

FWIW, game is working as designed.

That's not a great defence when it's a poor design. Diplomacy is a long way from being as bad as it's commonly portrayed, and in most contexts is better than in past iterations of the series, but the assorted incarnations of the warmonger penalty have been a bugbear since the game's release and haven't really been fixed.

Warmonger penalties for territory taken, rather than just for declaring war, were an improvement, but civs taking no account of their own relations with the civ you're at war with, and the global penalty for capturing a capital, are simply bad ideas that have never been remedied.

 

[Jingo7]

By 1900AD only two thirds of the planet is inhabited, there have only ever been 2 wars, global population is stagnant, but the game is working as designed!

Civ5 may well represent the history of a species living on a planet, but it certainly is not humanity.

 

[claudiupb]

Actually 2/3 of the planet is inhabited by people living in a "civilized" empire/country. The rest is inhabited by tribes and bands of nomads or primitive agriculturists. That is not that far off.
The fact that there have only been two major wars isn't that bad either. Surely there have been numerous battles fighting the "uncivilized" barbarians. Those barbarian villages that were destroyed are also wars, sure it is a one direction war, where an huge empire with advanced technology is destroying a bunch of pesky neighbors that, at most, can pillage and plunder the fertile lands of the civilized empire, but history is full of such wars.
So with a little imagination the game is not that off.

What I found really off is the fact that some civs that did not have a glorious history IRL are so OP in the game. Like the Inca who did not even had writing by the time the Spaniards arrived, are super good on science in the game. That is ironic. This works both ways, like the Romans who maintained control over the Mediterranean basin and great areas of inland Europe for hundreds of years, are a pretty bad civ in the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Actually 2/3 of the planet is inhabited by people living in a "civilized" empire/country. The rest is inhabited by tribes and bands of nomads or primitive agriculturists. That is not that far off.
The fact that there have only been two major wars isn't that bad either. Surely there have been numerous battles fighting the "uncivilized" barbarians. Those barbarian villages that were destroyed are also wars, sure it is a one direction war, where an huge empire with advanced technology is destroying a bunch of pesky neighbors that, at most, can pillage and plunder the fertile lands of the civilized empire, but history is full of such wars.
So with a little imagination the game is not that off.

Battles vs barbarians sure do not feel like actual wars. But I think this is a problem common to every iteration of the franchise, maybe slightly more with the fifth one. (I dream of a civ with a lot of wars, victories and defeats, but the main problem now is deciding what you become when you are one of the losing civ)

As to land populated, again we do not have this feeling. Civ6 should definitely give the player some sense of life outside of his borders others than random berserker units, like adding nomad units, or aknowledging of a human presence in some tiles, like camp fires, caverns, huts, and why not actual humans.

 

[lockandload]

Too many alerts later in the game. I don't need to be notified every CS goes to war with some AI civ. Or at least make them clear on their own.

I would like a button that makes all outstanding moves be no move at all. When you have a big group, everyone has to be told to take a nap or chill, especially all the generals.

On the automatic moves, have the AI stay in the area until all moves are made. After starting my careful advance on my opponent. I don't want to be hyperjumped to a production query in the city after the first unit is moved.

 

[lockandload]

3 - Speaking of diplomatic solutions...What's the deal with attempting to end a war? Click on a country's city, a weary Queen Elizabeth says "For the good of both of our countries, let us end this conflict...". Sure sounds good. OK, so I click <Negotiate Peace>, and then click the basic allotted peace option where you each agree to a peace treaty. Her response is to basically laugh at me, and then when I ask how to make this work, she doesn't see any way. THIS IS BAD PROGRAMMING (I'm a software developer). It's a waste of time and it breaks many tenets of fluid programming principles (firstly, it's a senseless bit of circular logic).

I don't see the problem here. You got her attention but when you made your offer it wasn't enough. Just because she encouraged you to peace, doesn't mean she doesn't expect a bribe. When you have her on the ropes, you are unlikely to accept a simple cessation of hostilities.

 

[lockandload]

I personally find the mechanic of adding cities increasing unhappy perfectly realistic... when you add a city to the empire, you have essentially reduced the 'share' of resources, attention, importance, and money to every other city, resulting in increased unhappiness

Plus, it equalizes the game for people not building an empire.

 

[Jingo7]

Actually 2/3 of the planet is inhabited by people living in a "civilized" empire/country. The rest is inhabited by tribes and bands of nomads or primitive agriculturists. That is not that far off.
The fact that there have only been two major wars isn't that bad either. Surely there have been numerous battles fighting the "uncivilized" barbarians. Those barbarian villages that were destroyed are also wars, sure it is a one direction war, where an huge empire with advanced technology is destroying a bunch of pesky neighbors that, at most, can pillage and plunder the fertile lands of the civilized empire, but history is full of such wars.
So with a little imagination the game is not that off.

What I found really off is the fact that some civs that did not have a glorious history IRL are so OP in the game. Like the Inca who did not even had writing by the time the Spaniards arrived, are super good on science in the game. That is ironic. This works both ways, like the Romans who maintained control over the Mediterranean basin and great areas of inland Europe for hundreds of years, are a pretty bad civ in the game.

We're all playing civ, I'm sure we all have excellent imaginations. However I find it weird that you would object to a historical loser the Incas (no disrespect of course) actually 'winning' in one alternative reality. Surely this is the point of civ, to display how much of history is due to ecological geographical circumstances. If the Incas had 'started' on the Iberian peninsula and the Spanish in central america, surely the roles would be reversed, and Incan cavalry would be trampling Spanish wooden-armoured infantry.

There are however, some more basic human developments that are not so contingent. From before 1914 our world was so fully divided between the major capitalist powers that it caused 2 world wars. And yet you say that most wars are fought against barbarians. Well maybe, but then when the world is swallowed up the victors battle each other viciously. Yes, maybe capitalism isn't an inevitable human development, but even before it, the world is pretty much totally occupied.

What I'm trying, badly, to say is that Civ5, even given that players need a good imagination to fully appreciate civ, runs counter to something very basic about humanity. To me it just doesn't feel as if I am playing a game about humanity.

 

[chuckh89]

The AI reacting to your strategy on the same turn,...!!

Situation:

Found El Dorado nearby in the first 10 turns, and after many rerolls,...I feel I am confident on what I have seen out of build cycles for CSs on these settings.

Quick Great General to steal El Dorado tile

CS makes a worker, Excellent!...Two for one deal (Take worker with warrior, move GG in postition to grab tiles including El Dorado, Then next turn build Citadel, and move Warrior that captured worker into Citadel...Perfect!

Impossible for a CS to build a worker then military unit back to back at these early stages of the game,-PLUS,...Why would he?...He has no clue what it going to happen because I haven't even declared war yet.... AND I can see it is a very Low Production capital w/ no resources improved.

This could be my Best Start...Ever?!

NOPE!!!!

Result:

Unit moves out, and takes my GG!!!

Why are the AI rules different!
-The only way it is possible is if the CS bought a unit,...FINE! But he has to wait a turn to move that unit if he purchases it,....Ridiculous!



How can I understand how to effectively play this game if the rules are different between the AI and myself,...I don't understand!

 

[Naokaukodem]

Now Prince I declared war to shaka who had impies. Shame, he made great use of them, carpetting them together and also with his 3 moves he could kill a comp bow of mine. then a pike. then another pike. Comon, how cheated are they ? No talking about auto regen hahaha this is pathetic.

I dream of a Civ where every civ has the same units and no "surprise" junk like those ones. It made for AIs personnalities but as they act like jerks most of the time it doesn't help a lot. So better scrap those differences within the civs.

Plus, without differences we could have tons of civ names, along with their own city names and culturally linked start position. That would make sure a ton of more true roleplaying and recreating history...

 

[reddishrecue]

So I started having 'fun'... I chose maya and went honor at deity difficulty. I built a couple of atlalists to get things going and the pyramid for technology. Eventually, I ended up next to Shaka and obviously he attacks with mass impies.. I killed a couple of impies before his impies eventually took one of my cities with atlalists and maybe a CB or two..

 

[Cerilis]

So the AI can coup a city state they are at war with and are allied with me at 110+?! Yeah, screw you, Shaka...

 

[FlorbFnarb]

Now Prince I declared war to shaka who had impies. Shame, he made great use of them, carpetting them together and also with his 3 moves he could kill a comp bow of mine. then a pike. then another pike. Comon, how cheated are they ? No talking about auto regen hahaha this is pathetic.

I dream of a Civ where every civ has the same units and no "surprise" junk like those ones. It made for AIs personnalities but as they act like jerks most of the time it doesn't help a lot. So better scrap those differences within the civs.

Plus, without differences we could have tons of civ names, along with their own city names and culturally linked start position. That would make sure a ton of more true roleplaying and recreating history...

Having every civ be the same would make it meaningless to play a different civ.

 

[daft]

Originally Posted by Naokaukodem View Post
Now Prince I declared war to shaka who had impies. Shame, he made great use of them, carpetting them together and also with his 3 moves he could kill a comp bow of mine. then a pike. then another pike. Comon, how cheated are they ? No talking about auto regen hahaha this is pathetic.

I dream of a Civ where every civ has the same units and no "surprise" junk like those ones. It made for AIs personnalities but as they act like jerks most of the time it doesn't help a lot. So better scrap those differences within the civs.

Plus, without differences we could have tons of civ names, along with their own city names and culturally linked start position. That would make sure a ton of more true roleplaying and recreating history...


Culturally linked, meaning starting next to each other? This absolutely makes perfect sense, for example, I select England as my tribe, select 10 opponent nations, I sure would like to see Euro based opponents (AI) as my closest neighbours, this would make the game feel more, let's say, realistic?
Instead I get Rome, Inca and Polynesia next to me, great!

The overall AI setup is quite crappy, they pretend to be your friends just to betray you for a handful of gold down the road. I mean, declaring war on a stronger (human) neighbour should take more than a few gold pieces for an AI controlled civ! What if it costs them dearly at the end of war? A good leader takes all possible benefits and dangers into account before declaring war!

 

[daft]

Poland gets a bit of unfair advantage with the policies benefit.