Gave Civ V yet another try...it's still not doing it for me

[jjkrause84]

Well, a new patch so another chance to be pleasantly surprised, right?

In this case, no. Wrong.

As long as science is tied DIRECTLY to population I do not believe that the game can work...period. How can a small, cultural civ keep up with expanding military civs? It's all but impossible. I guess it's a good thing I can't just CRUSH the computer on 6 like I formerly did (and I'm NOT a very good player, by any stretch)...but it still doesn't feel like I'm being out-played. The game rules and mechanics just don't "feel" right.

Also, the game kept zooming away to focus on combat in a distant allied CS rather than not letting me sit and watch my capitol be attacked (it eventually fell, and I rage-quit). Nice job there.....

 

[mattavich]

Damn that sucks, I love civ 5.

 

[JohnnyW]

As long as science is tied DIRECTLY to population I do not believe that the game can work...period. How can a small, cultural civ keep up with expanding military civs? It's all but impossible.

This is one of the major flaws of civ5's ruleset IMO. RAs also don't "feel" right. I think they really botched science in this edition.

CS mechanics are another broken area, and of course the horrible combat AI.

 

[sqdtnz]

For me it does feel like a better game since the last patches. But there are still many weaknesses in the game too. I must say the earlier stages of the game are very nice, but later on in the game everything starts to feel cluttered and chaotic.

Just an hour ago I lost a game, when suddenly a small civ won the game on cultural victory. There were no warnings in advance (at least none that I saw). I was preparing for a huge war against my neighbor England, and then I got the message that I lost to a petty small civ..

 

[mrtauntaun]

I don't have this problem. As a cultural civ, I can afford lots of policies. Make one of these patronage. My city state allies make up 2/3rds of my science output, allowing me to keep pace with the warmongers.

 

[Martin Alvito]

As long as science is tied DIRECTLY to population I do not believe that the game can work...period. How can a small, cultural civ keep up with expanding military civs? It's all but impossible.

If you want to play that kind of game, you have to go with the Patronage tree and you have to devote a lot of cash to allying city-states and Research Agreements.

Expansionism has always been selected for in games in the Civ franchise.

I agree with you that there are still some major mechanics and interface problems, but the current product is much, much stronger than the release product. It still isn't very accessible for Civ veterans though, because so many of the mechanics were overhauled. Once you get the hang of it, production choices are now as rich as they were in Civ IV. You have a lot of options, as there no longer is a pathway that is obviously better than all others all of the time.

 

[the343danny]

In my opinion, it would be great if research was provided by both population and some other factor.

 

[Camikaze]

If you are a small civ going for a cultural victory, do you need to keep up in terms of tech? Sure, it's nice to, but it's not necessary to be at the absolute cutting edge. Research agreements and Patronage (or Rationalism) take the edge off the disadvantage, so I don't find it too much of an issue. YMMV though, I guess.

 

[learner gamer]

I agree with you that there are still some major mechanics and interface problems, but the current product is much, much stronger than the release product. It still isn't very accessible for Civ veterans though, because so many of the mechanics were overhauled. Once you get the hang of it, production choices are now as rich as they were in Civ IV. You have a lot of options, as there no longer is a pathway that is obviously better than all others all of the time.

IMHO, this is a really interesting set of observations.

FWIW, I mentioned in another thread that my recent Civ 5 playthrough (which was my first in a few months) also found the latest incarnation better balanced than the original. However, I stopped playing that game because I still found that there was too little to do per turn for my tastes – which is why the part of your quote that I’ve emboldened is very interesting.

Whilst you mention the “richness” of production choices available Martin, can I just clarify how you see the “number” of choices (preferably per turn) available in Civ 5, relative to a game of Civ 4? Oh, and BTW everyone, before this degenerates into another one of those completely pointless I love Civ 5 / I hate Civ 5 threads, I ask this question because (i) Martin may not mean “number” when mentioning “richness”, so I think it's right to clarify and (ii) since Martin is someone who I’ve noticed has some terrific insight into Civ 5, I’d value his view on this issue. It might very well, for instance, highlight something that I’m missing and incentivise me to fire up another game or re-commence the one that I've put on hold.

 

[jjkrause84]

If you are a small civ going for a cultural victory, do you need to keep up in terms of tech? Sure, it's nice to, but it's not necessary to be at the absolute cutting edge. Research agreements and Patronage (or Rationalism) take the edge off the disadvantage, so I don't find it too much of an issue. YMMV though, I guess.

Well, I was invaded with musketmen and I had catapults and bowmen. I didn't do so well....

In the past I've done the Patronage > buddy-up thing to great success. Kept up in tech and usually wound up at the end of the game sending out a small, elite expeditionary force to protect some little Belgium somewhere. Lots of fun! Maybe the AI has gotten good enough to where I have to step down a level? That would not be unpleasant.

I do find the game getting better and better....and I do maintain hope that it will ONE DAY out shine Civ 4. Maybe after a few dozen patches and a pair of expansion packs?

 

[Kaxeon]

I don't really understand why so many people think it is unfair or strange that science is directly tied to population.

More pop means more great thinkers, which means faster technological advancement. Of course this can be boosted by developing a good educational system which is also represented in the game by libraries, universities and the like.

Historically, the greatest advancements in science has been done in wartime, and I find it only logical that warmongers and huge empires have a natural advantage in research.

In earlier versions of civ, science was also (although indirectly) tied to your pop. More pop = more commerce = more science.

Keeping up with only a single city SHOULD be hard.

 

[Darkpriest667]

I don't really understand why so many people think it is unfair or strange that science is directly tied to population.

More pop means more great thinkers, which means faster technological advancement. Of course this can be boosted by developing a good educational system which is also represented in the game by libraries, universities and the like.

Historically, the greatest advancements in science has been done in wartime, and I find it only logical that warmongers and huge empires have a natural advantage in research.

In earlier versions of civ, science was also (although indirectly) tied to your pop. More pop = more commerce = more science.

Keeping up with only a single city SHOULD be hard.

except nothing about that is realistic.. Until an espionage event the chinese were about 40 years behind the US with 6 times the population.. India also.. Was very far behind until recently with about 4 times the population...

Population does not = technologically advanced.

When the Europeans set foot in America the Native American population was about 30 million in North America. The Aztec Empire alone accounting for almost 15 million individuals.. The Inca Empire of South America is estimated to have had as many as 12 million people. They were still in the stone age when Europeans set foot over here and were utterly wiped out by diseases and superior technology within 2 centuries.

To be Fairly comparative The Population of France in 1500 was about 12 million. The Population of England was only about 7 million. Yet they were Far and Away more technologically advanced...

Again Population does not = Technologically advanced.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Whilst you mention the “richness” of production choices available Martin, can I just clarify how you see the “number” of choices (preferably per turn) available in Civ 5, relative to a game of Civ 4?

It's obvious that you made more production choices in Civ 4 on a per turn basis due to the availability of the whip. You had to resolve "whip/not whip" for every city on every turn, and while that often resolved down to "whip every 10 turns", it was still a choice you had to think through for every city because the guideline sometimes failed spectacularly.

But it's fair to say that we've reached a point with Civ 5 where every production decision matters, and making errors costs you. The problem with versions prior to .217 was that the terrain was irrelevant and an obviously dominant pathway existed for each victory pathway. The result was that playing well meant mindlessly executing the same actions game after game, and that isn't what any of us want.

Civ choice also matters now. Depending on whether I'm pushing Science with Babylon, Siam or Arabia, I play the early game very differently. Strategies that work quite well for one civ work poorly for the others. Arabia ends up with a lot of money to throw around, which makes an early Patronage gambit coupled with aggressively allying city-states work almost as well as an ultra-aggressive REX while spamming Research Agreements does for Babylon. Siam needs a lot less than anyone else to get Wats due to Legalism and not needing Libraries, which makes NC first very attractive.

In addition, the decision to throw at a city-state, purchase Research Agreements or rush a building isn't always obvious. That compensates at least somewhat for the vastly inferior Great People system that we have this time around, although I do find separating the GPP you produce rather than putting them all in a pool and randomly allocating which GP you get to be a large design improvement.

 

[learner gamer]

@Martin Alvito: Many thanks for your reply. You may not believe this but, to my eternal shame, I’d actually overlooked the impact of the whip when I thought of asking the question. However, I had of course thought about / realised the impact of the whip on the number of decisions per turn of Civ 5 previously.

Instead, the aspect of Civ 5 that was going through my mind when I asked the question was actually empire size ie. whether Civ 5’s mechanics mean in your view that empire size (defined as the total number of cities settled and annexed) is materially different in a post patch Civ 5 world (eg. with its minimum 3 hexes between cities) compared to a game of Civ 4 – and whether differences in empire size across the games materially changes the number of decisions per turn. Many apologies for not making this at all clear in my earlier post. Perhaps the easiest way for me to test this will be to simply play a few more starts.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I have to say that I agree with the points you make. IMHO, it is indeed nice to see that one particular set of gameplay options no longer so obviously dominates another. Indeed, during my playthrough, I actually found myself pausing on the odd occasion to look through the Civ 5 strategy sub-forum for the first time for some guidance – because the optimum choice no longer seemed obvious. Of course, this move to pause also partly reflected the issue you quite correctly raised in your earlier post re: the difficulties being encountered by Civ 4 players adjusting to a new set of game mechanics. Talking of game mechanics BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with the point you make re: the removal of randomness in GP generation being a large design improvement – indeed, I think that Civ 5’s major advantage relative to Civ 4 concerns the less prominent role played by the RNG, courtesy of the design choices made to elements such as the GP generation and combat systems.

 

[aatami]

I have at least found my self going down a difficulty notch after the latest patch.

 

[vra379971]

except nothing about that is realistic.. Until an espionage event the chinese were about 40 years behind the US with 6 times the population.. India also.. Was very far behind until recently with about 4 times the population...

Population does not = technologically advanced.

When the Europeans set foot in America the Native American population was about 30 million in North America. The Aztec Empire alone accounting for almost 15 million individuals.. The Inca Empire of South America is estimated to have had as many as 12 million people. They were still in the stone age when Europeans set foot over here and were utterly wiped out by diseases and superior technology within 2 centuries.

To be Fairly comparative The Population of France in 1500 was about 12 million. The Population of England was only about 7 million. Yet they were Far and Away more technologically advanced...

Again Population does not = Technologically advanced.

As a History major, I'm just going to politely bushwhack your argument on two points:

1) Its not as if everyone started at the same time.

2) The Native Americans were not 'nations' and according to their life philosophy had no need to be more scientific.

In sum, you're right. Population does not IMMEDIATELY mean technologically advanced. There has to be an impetus and a will for improvement - however, population does facilitate research to a great degree, so yes, it does make sense for it to be tied to population.

 

[jjkrause84]

As a History major, I'm just going to politely bushwhack your argument on two points:

1) Its not as if everyone started at the same time.

2) The Native Americans were not 'nations' and according to their life philosophy had no need to be more scientific.

In sum, you're right. Population does not IMMEDIATELY mean technologically advanced. There has to be an impetus and a will for improvement - however, population does facilitate research to a great degree, so yes, it does make sense for it to be tied to population.

You're a history major, right? Go out and read 'Crucible of War' by Fred Anderson. It's a first-rate history of the Seven Years War and it might make you rethink your assessment of intra-native american politics. I think "Nation" is absolutely the right word.

In any case, can you clarify your point that "It's not as if everyone started at the same time"? I'm not sure what you meant there.

 

[JohnnyW]

As a History major

I don't know why you feel the need to preface your argument with this. When someone prefaces their arguments like this it makes me think the folowing argument is weak so they need it to seem more authoratative based on their position. Also, being a history major doesn't mean much by itself. What are your specific areas of expertise? That seems like it would be of some relevance.

1) Its not as if everyone started at the same time.

China's age and population wants to know why your argument doesn't fit for them.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Let T = Technological position of a society.

Then dT / dt (rate of change of technology over time) can be approximated by a function f(P,F,W,C)

where
P is the population of the society,
F is average number of free man-hours a person has each day,
W is some measure of the willingness to accept new ideas (e.g. a society being held back by a church would lower the value of W), and
C is some measure of the wealth of the society including what natural resources and animals it has access to.

One could make a basic model for f() as follows:

f(P,F,W,C) = A * P * F * W * C

where A is some constant.


The reason I say this (apart from having a bit of fun ) is that it sounds like some of you are arguing whether a model:

f(P,F,W,C) = A * P

would work very well. I don't think any rational person would argue dT / dt is proportional to population and nothing else. However it's quite reasonable to use a model where there are other variables involved and where f(P,F,W,C) is still proportional to P.

 

[nokmirt]

Well, a new patch so another chance to be pleasantly surprised, right?

In this case, no. Wrong.

As long as science is tied DIRECTLY to population I do not believe that the game can work...period. How can a small, cultural civ keep up with expanding military civs? It's all but impossible. I guess it's a good thing I can't just CRUSH the computer on 6 like I formerly did (and I'm NOT a very good player, by any stretch)...but it still doesn't feel like I'm being out-played. The game rules and mechanics just don't "feel" right.

Also, the game kept zooming away to focus on combat in a distant allied CS rather than not letting me sit and watch my capitol be attacked (it eventually fell, and I rage-quit). Nice job there.....

Whoa Whoa Whoa!!! Your capital fell, my god sir how did this happen?!!! I think I have lost two cities in the whole time I have played CiV, since Sep 2010! I have had my capital besieged but the AI was not able to take it. Perhaps this is a new development we should focus on. The AI can militarily take your capital, damn my lucky soul!

As far as your insight on science linked to pop. I agree. Firaxis is supposedly going to be making some drastic changes upcoming.