General question about the gameplay (coming from Civ 4)

[DocRock]

Hey,

maybe you guys can help me out here. First, I want to make sure that this is not seen as a hatepost. I am really trying to love Civ 5, but so far it's not working. Please help me understand this game. About me – I am a biiiig fan of Civ 4 BTS. I love this game. I've been playing it for years and countless hours. I absolutely disliked Civ 5 Vanilla, but now I decided to gave BNW a shot. And so far.. it's just the same. So maybe I am playing it the wrong way?!

I'm 4 hours into a new game – and I have nothing to do but pressing „next turn“.

I build up a little empire on a continent map. Build it up to 5-6 cities, then I ran out of space because of 2 other civs and 6 city-states (!). I had 6-7 workers who finished all available constructions pretty fast. I only needed 3 military units, because seriously 1 unit of Archers is enough to annihilate armies of Barbarian (they simply do not close in) and 1-2 Spearmen just for safety reasons.

So that's the situation: I couldn't attack any civs because the city defenses are really strong and prevent any early Axemen-rush like I am used to. Workers did their job, waiting idle. Building? Nearly got all stuff I needed, more is not useful because of maintenance costs. Diplomacy? Not much to do either... attacking city states? Guess they are much more useful if fed with money. Army? Why.. the AI is no serious threat at all. Even if they are more aggressive, 3-4 units are enough I guess.

In Civ 4, I would be really busy until 0 AD hits. I need to plan Axemen/Swordsmen/Catapults rushes, build fogbusters to secure against barbarian assaults (that are deadly... opposed to the ones in 5), researching beeline techs like Code of Laws or Lib, build up a road structure with a bunch of workers, spread my religion, build a bigger army, try to push wonders by cutting downs trees, building up my empire of 20+ cities, securing the whole continent etc

But all this seems not needed / not possible in Civ 5. Instead I keep clicking and clicking next turn... next turn... next turn... next turn... next turn... next turn... next turn... you get the idea.

And this is freaking boring. There must be something I do not understand.

 

[Civking5]

So that's the situation: I couldn't attack any civs because the city defenses are really strong and prevent any early Axemen-rush like I am used to...

In Civ 4, I would be really busy until 0 AD hits. I need to plan Axemen/Swordsmen/Catapults rushes, build fogbusters to secure against barbarian assaults (that are deadly... opposed to the ones in 5).....

Wierdest complain of all. Is it me, or something here just doesn't make sense?

 

[Civking5]

Ok, I try to stay positive. If you want to rush, Beeline to composite bow, build 5 or 6 of them ASAP and rush, swallow 1 or 2 civ and 2 or 3 cs. Be ready for a hell for the rest of game.

 

[rschissler]

I'm 4 hours into a new game – and I have nothing to do but pressing „next turn“.

That's a common complaint of Civ V. You just have to accept it, and realize you aren't playing Civ IV. For taking cities, you need ranged units like archers, etc. Think of it as like bombarding and collateral damage from Civ IV.

 

[Civking5]

That's a common complaint of Civ V. You just have to accept it, and realize you aren't playing Civ IV. For taking cities, you need ranged units like archers, etc. Think of it as like bombarding and collateral damage from Civ IV.

You really have no idea what are you talking about. Do you even play civ5, or just here to spam every thread with junk?

 

[paulcarri]

I get were the op is coming from

I moved from iv (Immortal player) to V

the big difference is that on the 'none top levels', as you say the ai is not a threat,
the ai does not seem to understand how to protect or use ranged units properly, and
doesnt even seem to realise embarking units next to enemy ships is a bad idea (i incredulously watched napoleon march unit after unit into the sea to be destroyed by sotl and carvaels)

The ai is utterly incompetent really, hence why newbies such as myself who dont have a clue what they are doing can win on king here, whereas you wouldnt start a newbie on monarch on bts

So due to lack of threat... you get no sense of urgency to get decent defences in etc,

Plus the game can FEEL slower because next turn is slower

However, there are nice features of 5, espionage is good. And religion seems interesting too

And although the ai cant use its units well, mixing ranged units with melee units is a good idea

And the game looks nicer as well

What i did was speed the game speed up, i used to play marathon on bts, i play civ v on standard

I think its important to try and not compare the game to BTS as well, its a totally different game

I think if they fix the ai, the game could be far superior to IV , theres a lot of good stuff there

 

[Biz_]

the game is interesting when opponents can challenge you so that there's a lot more to manage than pressing "next turn"

unfortunately, they shipped the game without an AI and 3 years later the AI is still horrible

 

[Civking5]

Some of you people always show up in thread like this and derail it with irrelevant replies. Op mostly likes to know how to rush early? Add something to the discussion or just move one.

 

[DocRock]

Hmm... thanks so far, I am beginning to get the impression that I have to see them both as separate games and not one being the successor of another. CivKing5, My question wasn't about rushing, it was more about the fact that Insimply do not know what to do at all besides pressing Next Turn and still winning easily.

I started a BtS game yesterday for comparison reason and managed to turn the computer off at 3AM... damnit, really tired now (kid woke up at 6...). I thought maybe if I get a better understanding of 5, something similar would happen there.

But maybe these are simply two completely different games and if you love one, it's really hard to like the other.

 

[paulcarri]

Hmm... thanks so far, I am beginning to get the impression that I have to see them both as separate games and not one being the successor of another. CivKing5, My question wasn't about rushing, it was more about the fact that Insimply do not know what to do at all besides pressing Next Turn and still winning easily.

I started a BtS game yesterday for comparison reason and managed to turn the computer off at 3AM... damnit, really tired now (kid woke up at 6...). I thought maybe if I get a better understanding of 5, something similar would happen there.

But maybe these are simply two completely different games and if you love one, it's really hard to like the other.

I like both

 

[MrCynical]

But maybe these are simply two completely different games and if you love one, it's really hard to like the other.

There's certainly some truth in that. When vanilla Civ 5 first came out I basically shelved it for a year after my first few games were nothing but hitting "next turn" until I won the space race. BNW improved things enough to make it a viable game but it can still get rather dull, especially if it's a peaceful game.

First thing I'd say is ramp up the difficulty. Starting on Prince was definitely a mistake in my case. If you've played a fair amount of Civ 4, you'll probably find anything below Emperor is just a matter of coasting to victory. Also consider picking a faster game speed. In Civ 4 I pretty much always played Marathon. In Civ 5 I find Epic is if anything a little sluggish compared to that pace.

 

[gps]

Some of you people always show up in thread like this and derail it with irrelevant replies.

... should read your very own posts in the light of that statement ... just sayin' ...

 

[Civking5]

... should read your very own posts in the light of that statement ... just sayin' ...

With this, you just proved my point. I am quite unfortunate to see your posts here and there. Move on to a game that like. To the op, I like both civ4 and civ5. I go further and say that I have the same feeling about civ3.

Moderator Action: Your posts in this thread are trolling and spam. They don't contribute anything of value to the discussion, and serve to inflame tensions.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[paulcarri]

There's certainly some truth in that. When vanilla Civ 5 first came out I basically shelved it for a year after my first few games were nothing but hitting "next turn" until I won the space race. BNW improved things enough to make it a viable game but it can still get rather dull, especially if it's a peaceful game.

First thing I'd say is ramp up the difficulty. Starting on Prince was definitely a mistake in my case. If you've played a fair amount of Civ 4, you'll probably find anything below Emperor is just a matter of coasting to victory. Also consider picking a faster game speed. In Civ 4 I pretty much always played Marathon. In Civ 5 I find Epic is if anything a little sluggish compared to that pace.

I agree with this statement

It is possible to lose though!, i started a new game where i decided to play a faith game (beelined stonehenge).. and ive managed to get behind on tech....so if i stayed peaceful id lose

Thing is though i know in reality i could probably go the warmonger route to win...


That sums up civ 5 for me, fantastic game, terrible ai. But i just self impose rules such as if having an island game...no aggressive wars taking advantage of ai being unable to use its navy etc

I dont wanna turn difficulty up too high because i hate the way top difficulties work (silly bonus's)

 

[Dr. D]

As suggested, I'd turn up the difficulty. I am rarely stuck hitting "next turn" without having something to manage, be it workers improving tiles, trading, monitoring happiness or moving armies. When I made the switch from IV to V, the big adjustment for me was the limited number of cities in the typical game. With time, it has become an acceptable mechanic. To a degree, you will feel you are doing less because you are managing fewer cities.

In the end, I think your preferred game style may determine how much fun you have with the game. In terms of pure empire building, IV seemed more gratifying to me. I can see how a builder may be disappointed with V in that regard. I'm a bit of a builder/warmonger hybrid, so whether I'm building up my cities or preparing to invade my neighbor, I've always got something to do.

The neat thing to me about V is the individuality of each civ and how they play differently. I'd encourage thinking out of your typical box and try different playstyles. Are you the Aztecs? Hunt barbarians for culture and try the honor policy tree. Siam? Play for the favor of the city states and adopt the patronage tree. Each civ can be played different ways. You may find experimentation and breaking from the norm to be most rewarding.

 

[Karmah]

I really find your genearl tone offensive and despicable but I will try to summon compassion and help out. First question , what difficulty are you playing ?
Warmongering early rush is not a key to victory @emperor to deity. Sure taking on your neighbour at war is very doable ,but it needs some skill to deal with the aftermath.As does peacefull play just not on the same mechanism.
When warmongering like crazy , you will need to pay attention to the other AI opinions, and the arrival of the congress,not mentionning gold and happiness. A lot fo you gpt comes from AI sending caravans to you , which they will stop to do if they really hate you or if they plan to teach you a lesson. Even if not , they will stop sending caravans if you don t have an attractive city to send it too , namely one with East india trading company.
If you don t receive caravans , you can subsitute that with some trading of lux/excess strategic ressources , but you need at least one AI with gold that do no hate you. If you destroy a civ in front of their eyes they usually will hate you...hopefully you have some counterplay to this...
Either jump in a early war to help out someone , or just pay attention to unmet civs and get a feel on when they should be discover by your scout/caravell or theirs. Wage wars when they don t know you , stop war , meet them , trade , then go back to war , stop meet another ... getting some voice @congress (forbidden palace ftw) and proposing world fair straight at foundation also helps getting newly met civs some good opinions...but in BNW it s a global world early on and it ain t so easy being the bad guy...
Once you have conquered enough with some good determination of cities to be pupeteed and razed ,+ managed to get enough trading post , then you can sorely ignore the rest of the world opinion...but first you need to reach that point of self sufficiency.

maybe you should play more turn , see if you can actually win by playing your dumb 'press end of turn' tactic but somehow I doubt it (sorry for this last sentence but I feel you deserve it)

 

[bjelar]

IMO BNW is by far the best version of civ since civ II, and even civ II had it's problems.

Explore the world, find city states, get lux and strategical resources, micro manage diplomatic relations...

It is true that sooner or later it sometimes turns into a "next turn" game, but I certainly had that issue in civ IV as well.

It takes a little bit of time to get used to, but there is no way I'll go back to civ IV at this point. Civ II maybe, for sentimental reasons

 

[paulcarri]

IMO BNW is by far the best version of civ since civ II, and even civ II had it's problems.

Explore the world, find city states, get lux and strategical resources, micro manage diplomatic relations...

It is true that sooner or later it sometimes turns into a "next turn" game, but I certainly had that issue in civ IV as well.

It takes a little bit of time to get used to, but there is no way I'll go back to civ IV at this point. Civ II maybe, for sentimental reasons

Late game has always dragged in civ, or am i the only one who has abandoned tonnes of games late on in the game once i know i am going to win?

Im talking about all versions of civ not just v

 

[bjelar]

Late game has always dragged in civ, or am i the only one who has abandoned tonnes of games late on in the game once i know i am going to win?

Im talking about all versions of civ not just v

On average I finish maybe one in five games

Most of the time the win is obvious at some point, and it becomes boring to actually go through with it (for the gazillionth time). It is much more fun to start a new game, and try out new ideas.

You are right, it has been like this since civ I. Civ V is a bit more unpredictable, but not much.

 

[paulcarri]

so true, my most exciting game was a world map on bts as england, i was going for space when one of the ai (rome i think) landed about 80 units on my shores..and it was a fight for survival (yes i know sod suck, but you could really get caught out at times)


thats why im hoping the ai is better at fighting in BNW, i have G&K, played a europe map and was actually excited when france and germany declared on me

But - they basically suicided their units..it was a tad dissapointing

I am very glad it isnt just me with the 'restart once you know you have won' syndrome though, im not going to even mention how many times ive regenned maps because i dont like the start