1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Gods and kings community verdict

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Bisqit, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,022
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm pretty addicted to G&K right now, but it just came out. Before I could only handle Civ5 in small doses too. Maybe 1 or 2 games a month. But I'm playing games back to back (still in the middle of my second game now- large map marathon). This is how I feel Civ5 should have been released as. The game seems fun which it wasn't when it was released. I hated Civ5 upon release.

    It's no Civ4. And a poster above mentions 1upt as an improvement. I know we'll always disagree with this. But I feel 1 upt has ruined Civ5. It's why Civ5 will never be as good as Civ4. But the developers have done a good job of minimizing how bad 1 upt sucks, and putting other fun things in the game. The reason why the AI sucks (also mentioned in an above post) is because of 1 upt. I'm sorry, but playing a tactical warfare game on a strategic scale map is plain stupid. It ruins the immersion. I will always hate 1 upt, and feel it's the wrong direction for Civ. Not that unlimited units per tile was a good thing, but I feel there's a happy medium. I'd rather they have it so you combine individual units into an army (Civ3 had this, but the ai sucked at it). Civ3 was the way to go, they just needed more army units (they should have been easier to make). With better improvements, I feel they should have went that way.

    Religion is better than Civ4, but could use some more tweaking. This is the only feature of Civ5 I like over Civ4. Espionage is alright, but could use more tweaking (more stuff to do) as well. The game is enjoyable right now, where as upon release it was unplayable (due to it being unfun).
     
  2. Xile

    Xile Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    The Interwebs
    SoDs are the reason I'm probably not gonna touch Civ 4 ever again. However, as many people have said before, 1upt is responsible for dumb the AI and long turn times. I'm sure the devs could write a better AI, but would our cpus be able to cope with it reasonably fast? Probably not. Also, there isn't a single game in which the AI is particularly bright.

    G&K improved civ 5 by a lot. Though, espionage seems rushed. If you're the tech leader or in end game where it takes 50+ turns to steal something, you don't have anything to do with your spies. Couple of more options like increasing religious pressure in a city, slowing/blocking production for x turns, lowering city defence, stealing a military unit, stealing some culture or something would be nice at least for fooling around a bit more. All in all it's a fun game.
     
  3. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    I never thought SoDs were that bad, really. At least you felt like you were at the head of a large force and could think strategically, instead of tactically. I still feels a little weird taking over the world with an army of 4-5 melee units and 3 cannon or artillery. The scale is all wrong.

    On a side note: anyone else think the player gets WAY too many great people? They really don't seem as special anymore.....
     
  4. Janig

    Janig Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    358
    The game has zero replayability. Civ5 highlights how bad combat is in the franchise, and makes it worse. I cant enjoy Civ4 anymore because there are too many units, and the Civ5 (G&K) AI is so abysmal that there is no challenge. Im hoping for Civ6.
     
  5. Vatras

    Vatras Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Austria
    I like Civ 5 way better with G&K, in regard to the OP question.

    Civ IV is for me the better game, though, but I think it would be nice, if religions worked there as they do in G&K now :)
     
  6. Miravlix

    Miravlix King

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    645
    In CiV you could have epic game where the AI played well on pangea maps.

    In G&K you get a chance to have epic games on naval maps too, diplomacy feels like a strategy element now, where you can plan your action and predict the outcome. Religion and Espionage is just more fun.

    So all in all CiV G&K is a very clear improvement over CiV.

    It seems to me that a few people sees the world as black and white, if one things goes bad everything is bad. CiV has epic games well played by the AI and it has bad games. If all you get is bad games, maybe you just aren't smart enough to take advantage of this game and should look for something you can't break. (Not sure what that would be, in my 30+ years of gaming I've never found a game you couldn't break because computers is dumb.)
     
  7. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,520
    Location:
    Madrid
    I feel the same as OP. It's a very good game, but not as complete as civ4. I continue playing civ5, and I will still play in the years to come. But, not as much as I did in the past years with civ4.

    For me, civ5 misses a lot of diplomacy gameplay. civ5 diplomacy is totally lacking. If I would do a new civ game, I would have done a much more complex diplomacy than civ4, not a much simpler one.
     
  8. blackcatatonic

    blackcatatonic Queen of Meme

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,930
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    UK
    Well, for all its faults, I haven't so much as looked at CIV since CiV vanilla came out. That says a lot, at least about what I feel 5 has brought to the franchise.

    That said, G&K has definitely added to and improved on the base game. Diplomacy feels a lot less artificial and ultimately pointless. The AI doesn't crazyspam cities on every inch of the map the way it used to. The new RAs and tech tree make it more difficult to slingshot your way through the tech tree - if you make poor decisions early on, you'll be punished for it even on the medium difficulty levels. City-state diplomacy isn't entirely dependent on who has the most cash. The AI seems slightly more intelligent in combat, but is noticeably harder to defeat thanks to the changes to the combat system and city defence. All in all, the game has become more challenging, more replayable, and more fun.
     
  9. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    It's not clear how either of these results from 1UPT - indeed most of the AI issues that seem to relate to 1UPT (the way units coordinate, focusing fire etc.) are the ones G&K has addressed with some success. Some I think are new homegrown AI problems with G&K resulting from overcompensating for (non-1UPT) issues with the base game - civs expand less generally, but possibly not enough. AI units are very cautious and overly prone to avoiding battles they could win if they might lose their unit in turn (with the inevitable result that they end up losing their unit anyway but doing less damage), while in the base game the AI was more likely to throw units away pointlessly. Maybe the AI treats an empty barb camp as a unit and avoids it on the same basis? Or were the two civs at war, and taking the camp might have rendered the unit vulnerable to attack? Whatever the motive, if the AI isn't programmed to seize empty camps on sight, it wouldn't do so if stacked either.

    I've only had one case in Civ V where poor combat AI has spoiled the experience to any degree - and ironically that was mostly because it felt a letdown following the same AI's diplomatic performance. Also, the AI in question was Attila, who seems especially poor by Civ V AI standards, probably partly because he hasn't been programmed to realise a battering ram isn't actually a spearman.
     
  10. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14,180
    If you look at Civ V by itself, it is a pretty good game that suffers from much of the same issues as any other strategy game. G&K has added intriguing features which are enjoyable.

    However in the context of the series, it loses its luster. Previous iterations have been elevated to a revered status. It does not compare as favorably primarily because it has taken steps to move the series in a new, unfamiliar direction (1upt & AI plays to win).

    Perhaps Firaxis has stumbled while moving in the new direction, but they should not be faulted for changing direction, just for stumbling in the implementation. I am eager to see the next iteration, Civ 6, set the cadence. In the meantime, I will enjoy playing G&K for what it is.
     
  11. Ikael

    Ikael King

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    My personal veredict:

    What Vainilla Civ V improved over Civ IV:

    - The combat. Jesus, the sweet, sweet combat. Killing stacks of death is the best game design decision ever. First time I ever founded myself waging war just for fun, a thing I did not made since the original Civ II
    - No roads needed to access special resources. Needs to be copied on further civilization sequels, me thinks
    - The city - states are a good idea, albeit poorly implemented

    What Gods and Kings have improved over Civ V vainilla:


    - Builder style of play is not as boring as in vainilla Civ V. Religions greatly add to this
    - AI is vastly improved from vainilla, as well, allowing different gameplays other than "I am surrounded by psycopaths, kill or be killed"
    - Different games do feel different (duh). This expansion allows for far more different playstyles than the vainilla, which was as pure of a war game as it gets
    - Navies ing finally doing something, an historical defect of the series being adressed, at long last
    - Religions have much more flavour than in Civ IV (even if they become kinda irrelevant on the late game)
    - CS quests are vastly improved, but the "cascade effect" makes them almost irrelevant once you reach


    What Civ IV (still) does better than Gods and Kings:

    - City placement used to be a relevant factor, and one of the funniest thing of the series, for it forced you to plan quite a lot in advance, but not anymore it seems. Hexes, REX and tile - buying ended up with it, a core gameplay design issue with little chance of being adressed in a expansion
    - Cultural victory and cultural mechanics in general. Waiting for the social policy bucket to fill up is much more boring than being rewarded for building megacities like a champ. Also, wonder whoring seems whoefully under - rewarded on this game (1 culture per wonder? wtf?)
    - Interface. Civ V looks far too cluttered, and numeric values and color circles are less intuitive than ye olde "bread / hammers / commerce" thing, me thinks, but I know that this is a very personal opinion
    - There's little to do during peace time, sans religions. Not quite a lot of decisions to take other than the social policy / belief choosing. I liked how even a single tile improvement could have impact over the course of the game
    - Enemy AI regarding diplomacy. Sorry, but this has its roots on core gaming design decisions. The whole Civ V philosophy of "AI playing like humans" and "AI playing to win a boardgame" and "let's ditch the simulator aspect" instead of the more realistic approach of Civ IV makes for a decidely more boring, more predictable game
    - Variety in gamestyles. This is what I truthly loved about Civ IV, the fact that several different strategies and playstiles worked rather than "the biggest civ wins". You could make trading empires, sprawling empires, small yet sturdy civs, specialist based civs, popullation based ones... each strategy worked on its own way.
    - Much more realistic approach that replicated history mechanics. I loved how it was complex to assimilate a conquered empire, how a bigger bigger did not always meant more dangerous civ or the whole Vatican politics that the apostolic palace allowed. Much of the historic flavour of Civ IV was lost, and quite a lot of the picks of civilization traits and leaders shows a distinct lack of historic understanding from the CivV creators
     
  12. Bisqit

    Bisqit Warlord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    U.S.
    I think one of the main differences is that civ 4 balances long term goals with short term goals. In civ5 it is all about the big picture rather than the small management and strategy that, i feel, ruins the feel of being a ruler over a huge empire. I mean global happiness, no sliders, 1upt, no health, no road connection the resources, no foreign trade routes, etc all take away from the in depth strategy that civ4 had in my opinion. All of the small things you had to manipulate, manage, and create all made civ4feel like an epic empire building game where you controlled every aspect of your empire.

    Civ5 is not bad but it doesnt feel like your classic civ game in my opinion. You dont have control over the smaller aspects anymore. Sure it has city management but honestly cities run themselves and to balance happiness all you have to do is get a new luxury or build a certain building. The civ5 formula is simplified. Its fun yes but it is not the in depth strategyy experience that i got with civ4. Everything in 5 is based on like little perks. Social policies are jst perk trees, religion is more or less little bonuses you pick from with no real reason to spread it around.

    All in all civ5 is fun but it doesnt have the same feel as the older games. Its fun and new but its disappointing how the civ formula has been altered so much. This feels more like a military game with a simple empire simulator. All the things that kept civ exciting throughout the game was all the stuff you could do and manipulate. I might be being too critical and probably sounding like i hate civ5. I dont, however, hate civ5 i actually really enjoy it its jst a very different game and doesnt have the same grand feeling that 4 had for me. It isnt dumbed down in my opinion its jst simplified and has been altered quite a bit. I mean u still need strategy to play but i rarely won in the early days of civ4 and i honedstly still have a hard time pulling a win on normal difficulty. I have never lost a game of civ5. It is much easier to do well in civ5 with very little effort. Civ4 takes effort to do truly well. It is a hardcore experience vs a casual experience.
     
  13. Mano3

    Mano3 King

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Soprano in Alabama
    IMHO, the game's improved. I'd given up on CIV 5 due to the crazy AI, but GAK has made the game fun again.
     
  14. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
     
  15. jimbbq

    jimbbq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    76
    i don't think civ 4 is deeper, i think it is its bad user interface which made it appear deeper because it is much harder to understand its mechanics.
     
  16. Securion

    Securion Civ Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    746
    Location:
    Earth (mostly..)
    Yea we are just imagining all those features that are in Civ 4 and not in Civ 5. Because we are confused about the... user interface... :mischief:

    omg
     
  17. trooth

    trooth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    23
    I don't see where stacked units was better in civ 4. The ai did more to keep their cities with conscripts and stacking defensive units, but you rarely saw smart stacks of tanks, mech inf, helicopters, and sams on the PC side. Most of the time you could get by with pumping out a few cities full of stealth bombers and a few huge stacks of modern armor a couple of helos and mech inf, and then just run through the enemies cities. Most everything else was just set aside for defense of cities. Navy was just their for transportation. The ai may have a harder time with 1UPT, but the game feels more balanced with units having a purpose.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
     
  18. Ikael

    Ikael King

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    Yay, great to see a good reply to my post! I feel in debt to reply now :)

    Fair enough. I can appreciate the way they tried to streamline micromanaging by eliminating superfulous "work" like the roads to luxury resources or adding the whole embarking mechanic (a stroke of genious that I hope that stays in future Civilization games).



    Yup, that's what I was refearing too when I mentioned the "cascade effect" once you have met enough CS. You end up reaping city state's rewards without having the intention to do it so, which is something that makes me scratch my head. I think that an implementation of a "city state main goal" would be good way to avoid that (example: "this city state will gain a non - disminished +75 relationship bonus with the civ with the highest number of wonders").


    Civ IV diplomacy opted for a more realistic diplomatic system by sacrifiying the excitement of the unpredictability, a direction that I agree with, even if I can understand that some other people might like a bit more of spice. That being said, I also miss the whole interdependence relations between nations that the Civ IV system created. The fact that trade relations with a third partner, goverments and religious alliences had butterfly effect on the world really added a lot to diplomacy, even if it was more slow - paced.


    A bigger city radious means a lessened impact of the city placement, the disappeareance of the health mechanic means a reduced importance of the riverside locations (and the inconveniences of jungle / flooded plains locations), and the standarization of tile improvements means that there's little room for city specialization. So I would say that yes, city placement is almost a non factor now, despite of the attempts of specialized buildings like the observatory or wonders like Petra. They point at the right direction, but they will need much more than these in order to make it work, me thinks.

    Thing is, megacities buidling forced me to take a constant stream of small decisions (national wonder placement, corporation expansion, etc) leading towards a greater goal (cultural victory), an aspect that I miss dearly in this Civ V.

    I always interpretated the whole slider mechanic as a kind of a "decadence meter" and it worked quite well at that since it forced you to become a backward civilization in order to sustain the costs of your inefficient empire (quite realistic!). About the infinite buidling copies of cities, that was something that only happened on the latter stages of the game with the industrial production bonuses (which is a common fault of every Civ).


    I trust you on the last part, since I rarely played Civ IV on deity level, but the mechanisms introduced on Civ V in order to curb the whole "bigger is better" effect were wholly uneffective (common unhappiness is not a proper deterrence) and led to the whole ICS madness. Civ IV's city manteinance costs were far more effective in that regard, me thinks, and in combination with the war weariness and individual city unhappiness, it forced you to rebuild the economy on the aftermath of the wars.

    Well, considering that thousand of Chinese peasants died in order to rush build the great wall, that particular mechanic ain't too much fantasy - like ;) then again, what I loved about Civ IV is that each game had a narrative of its own and an internal logic that matched quite well the historical mechanics described in books like "guns, germs and steel" (empires overxtending theirselves and crippling their economies, wars of atrition taking its toll, polluted cities during the industrial revolution, holy wars, etc).
     
  19. Bisqit

    Bisqit Warlord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    U.S.
    No civ4 is by far deeper and no its not the ui confusing people...in fact i think the ui was very well designed. All the little things like international trade routes, deeper espionage, corporations and even things like cottages and variation on tile yields makes the game deeper. 1upt can get annoying and it works identical to a SoD its jst the infamous carpet of doom. I love the ign review of vanilla 5 when he said "you have to use strategy its no longer a matter of 'are my numbers bigger than yours.'". Thats complete bs because ive won countless wars by simply making my carpet of doom and stomping across the map. Besides the fact is this is an empire building game not a military strategy game. War was always part of civ it wasnt the defining gameplay mechanic. I can go an entire civ4 game not declaring war and having fun but if you dont go to war in 5 it can get very boring. They just stripped out a lot of peacetime activites that gave the game its flavour
     
  20. Bisqit

    Bisqit Warlord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    U.S.
    Im finding that after a game or 2 with gods and kings its more or less the exact same game. It has been improved and fun in doses but still can get very tedious. I finished my first game by spamming next turn like 80 times. The ai and long time friends hated me after my 2 DoW throughout the entire game. My best friend from the start sweden denounces me and calls me a warmonger... There are still countless game breaking issues. The ai is still fairly stupid in wars and is still very irrational with diplomacy. Dont get me wrong, the ai has been vastly improved from launch but still i think of civ5 as civilization but not a sequel to the previous games. Its more complex than civ revolution(which was utterly terrible) but cant stand up next to civ4.
     

Share This Page