Discussion in 'News Updates' started by Moss, May 5, 2011.
Nice addition to the game. My kids will love this! Now they can play Civ with dad!
Do you pass a single beer between your friends too?
Thanks for the reply.
Personally, I'd like it if they put time into make the AI better, but if it makes fans happy, more power to 'em.
You must forgive my manner. As I've said I'm not one for pious outbursts; I've asked this question a number of times without being given that response, as I'm sure you can appreciate having had either no reply or quick open handed statements like the one just before, without an actual answer, has had me all bent out of shape this entire time. I do genuinely apologize.
That said, I suppose I can understand this now more than I ever have. I'm more patient with these things, so I'm not bothered by lack, or as it appears will-be-former-lack of hotseat, or the intro for that matter; I can work around that easily enough. I can't speak for anyone else, it would be entirely asinine, so I won't; but I'm not experiencing any problems at all. Mind you I don't deal with the AI much at all, I'm terribly pacifistic and do all in my power not to engage in war, and the only times I have engaged were against city states. This is also all done in Settler level, the only level I've achieved any victory in any Civ game; my first victory was my first full fledged Civ5 game in Settler. Proof of my complete lack of military ability can be found in the Mongol scenario, in 100 turns on Settler level I didn't capture a city much less met the victory conditions. But I'm not here to ramble on about myself.
I'm forced to concede even at the elementary level there are a few niggles in the diplomacy, random requests for a resource and propositions of terribly one-sided Open Border deals, but I've never minded at the time, in fact in game they're never so much as a concern. I suppose in higher games this would be more apparent, but until then it is nothing more than a theory.
Combat is mostly an excellent revision, the only problem I find is the bombardment settings of Archer/Siege units against the navy, after reading an earlier post I can see why it has become a problem. But the idea of one unit per tile I will continue to contest is, while not perfect, one of the greatest ideas for military strategy Firaxis has come up with.
What bugs? I have one bug to report, you can't immediately dispense with the introduction at will. This would be one point I actually would like you to elaborate further because I'm finding no such problems, and am compelled to ask light to be shed on the matter.
Given my woeful ability I don't dare engage with the current multiplayer settings and will happily sit and wait for hotseat. I fully expect any veteran player here and anywhere else to send my soul to the very core of the earth at turn 5, so I therefore must take your word for it.
To SickFak, as a weary and devoted fan of Civilization, I again apologize for my statements.
Do you pass the one braincell you got?
Moderator Action: Such insults are not allowed here.
Kind of off topic don't you think?
They're totally going the wrong way with their development time.
There was this thing invented a ways back. It's called Internet. Sid should look into it, it's pretty fricken slick.
I'm still pissed that we're on the 5th version of the game and the game still can't save the game creation settings.
1. First of all, you state there is a problem but you do not elaborate on what exactly is the problem. I for one, enjoy the way the Diplomacy and AI behave; I think it's much better than its predecesors (subjective, I know). I remember a lot of Civ 3 and 4 games where you had a neighbour who was your best friend through most of the game but then at a certain point, he was blocking your advance so you declare war. He's not strong so you'll waltz over him in a few turns. Players could do this, AI couldn't... Made the game predictable and boring in my opinion. Civ 5 fixed this by making the AI take decisions like a human could do; to win the game. Granted, the AI doesn't always choose the best way to victory, but that could make playing at some difficulties nigh-on-impossible.
2. The combat AI has gotten a lot more competent but I agree it isn't on par with a human player in a long shot. The combat AI in Civ 4 was even dumber, but it could ignore its inability by outproducing you. A better fix for this would be to make multiplayer possible without simultaneous turns, this way you could really try your skill with the combat system against another human being (instead of playing a game of "who can click quickest?").
3. I haven't noticed any AI problems or bugs. Perhaps I haven't played long enough (I only have around 400 hours played), but I think the game is pretty solid.
4. This one I agree with; when the game goes out of sync so many times (which should be easy to fix with a turn based game) and there are no animations, the game is obviously lacking.
But to call the game broken because of this? I would rather say there's some fine-tuning to be done which is the reason why they are making patches.
what about huge map game??? still not playable (freezes or don't load)
I think you should go to the 2K support forums... Works for me.
That is great, but I'll never use it (maybe I will we'll see). I know it needed to be added because they need to make all civvers happy. They should add some more concepts to the game to make it better than it is. Things that they left out do to time constraints. I am sure Firaxis will get to that at some point. At least I have another DLC and patch to look forward to, and thats fine by me.
Now that I know the secret, I wonder what civ they'll bring out next?
dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders, dll, modders... I'm just waiting for RoM, they have taste and, as it have seemed, a deadly amount of spare time
I agree, I can't really fault the game very much and the game does continue to fix itself every month or so. I also can't see any bugs, so I really can't fathom that one.
Help from 2k support, for huge map crash/not load, non exist!
If you're going to take an intolerant tone with your fellow forum-goers, you should put the word politely in quotes, thus: "politely". Because, frankly, your tone was anything but polite.
Others have answered your question already and I would just add my +1 to their comments. I found the following website to be particularly instructive about the fundamental flaws in the game: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html
You should read that. You may even want to keep an open mind about it.
The trouble with Civ V is as much that it is a Civ product as it is a poorly designed game. Were it simply another game out there, it likely would have quickly faded into obscurity. However, it's not. It carries the legacy of over 20 years of success behind it. And thats what it has to be compared to. You may call this unfair, but you would be wrong. Civ V gets the benefits of being the successor to Civ I-IV - an established, exuberant fan base, brand name recognition, a ready market willing to shell $50 a person to buy the game based on the slimmest hope that it is good. And because of all that, it is perfectly proper to compare it to its predecessors. And there it fails miserably (as many people in many threads have already pointed out). You can argue that the many patches are 'fixing' the game. But then you'd be confusing 'polish' with fundamentally sound game design. You can polish a turd all you want; its still a turd. Too much was left out, too much was ignored. There is the insulting idea of DLC for pay. And then there is the 1UPT and all that horribleness attached to it.
So what was my initial statement? "Difficult to unscramble an egg. Particularly when the chef insists on using a hammer". What does that mean? It means that the game has been fundamentally altered in such a way as to render it unrecognizable to the player. Being completely inappropriate to the task, a hammer represents the effort to "polish" the game.
Civ V for me, is a total loss. It cannot be repaired. I could live with that - everyone, even Sid is allowed a mulligan. However, the direction Firaxis is going with the DLC, and facebook suggests to me that Sid is more interested in padding his wallet than making great games. That is extremely saddening and unforgivable. Prior to Civ V, I would purchase a Sid product based exclusively on designer reputation (going waaaay back to F-15 Strike Eagle). Now I don't even want to see the Friaxis logo, or Sid. And yes, it DOES all come back to Sid. His name is on the damn box.
Based on your previous politeness, feel free to rip this email apart, knowing I won't be checking this thread again.
I am sick of that CiV is worthless and cannot be fixed. I believe it can and will. Knowing that, I also feel it should have been held during development for at least another year, until it was completed fully, without a bunch left out of it. That is history now, but Firaxis has a lot of work ahead to complete the process and get this game right. It has come along quite nicely to this point. I really have fun playing it lately. However, it still feels like something is missing. I would love to see some sort of intrigue or spying, espionage. The game needs another element added to it to expand its replayability factor. Espionage, events, perhaps vassalize CS so your civ can control them while they remain vassals, There could be events like arranged marriages or proposals. IDK there is a wide range of imagined possibilities here. Of course there is religion, perhaps the designers should look to history for the answer.
They could expand diplomacy to include military support from other civs or CS, the player can do the same for them, perhaps for gold or a hand in scientific research, or resources. Say a civ is losing a war, so they ask a friendly city state nearby for assistance. The major civ pays 200 gold or something to borrow 3 or 4 military units to keep under its control until a peace is signed between the warring factions. The CS units show up in the civs territory on the border or whatever, and the civ then can control them however he wishes. The other thing that could be added is arms sales, create units and sell them to other civs. Or perhaps there could be some kind of mercenary pool where civs could buy merc units, which would include combat units or even UU's from different civs from the era your civ is in. For instance, if your playing as England and its the medieval era, you click a merc tab on the UI and you see a list of mercs who are selling their service. Lets see there could be a Keshik with level 2 experience, a berserker with level 3 experience, a camel archer, or a level 5 samurai, it would show the unit, exp, and any promotions it has, and the cost of the unit. This list could be generated randomly, or civs could simply sell one or more of their military units for cash. Then other civs can hire them out, as available. Military units could be exchanged between civs, hey I'll give you a samurai for a knight and some gold, just something extra to barter. Later on it could be, hey I have some old artys for sale what will you give me? Those artys could be sold to a CS for some money. IDK they should just open up diplomacy and bartering more than it is.
My politeness, if you were to continue to read the thread, would be made clearer in another post that when another user did answer my question I immediately retracted. my politeness was also based on the fact that you didn't answer my question, and in some respect you still haven't, but that is no longer an issue. In the interests of manner and integrity I will also retract.
This blog talks a lot about a previous patch of Civilization V, so a number of these problems I'm no longer experiencing, but there are a few points I can touch on;
I find nothing wrong with the Natural Wonders, they appear to be reasonable within how each of the wonders have affected our world in various ways. As for the New World NWs, they are not designed to be part of the Civ5 MWs and were myths of locations explorers had continued to find them, that's where the lack of realistic yields comes from.
Social Policies have always been a big problem for me with the way they were set up, now after the latest patches it's now become easier to win a Cultural Victory with new SP bonuses. Ultimately though I am a huge fan of Civ4's Civics system of government and I maintain my comment on a person modding SPs into techs.
I've never bothered myself with the diplomacy aspect of the game, but to be completely fair and honest, that's mostly because I've only played in Settler level, due to my utter lack of any ability to win in any way from previous versions of Civ. I guess that actually speak volumes more of Civilization than myself.
Until I saw this, I was completely under the impression that, due to how I've understood others treat the AIs, everyone simply played a multiplayer game of 'Who's is bigger?' and in turn I have been using eliminating the Stack of Doom as a sacrificial goat to apese one unit per turn, I still believe SOD should never have exisited and an excellent way to remove it is 1U/T. That page is an excellent insight into just how much work has been put into stacking units, it has become a genuine science. But I can't entirely get over my original mind-set, because now what is a Stack of Doom? And more to the point are any of the examples here really not SODs? From what I can make out, these stacks are designed to defend from attacking stacks. I define these as Stacks of Doom; a collection of units designed to clash and destroy another collection of units designed for the same purpose. I invite some further insight into this. But to return to 1U/T; if people really are having problems with it, then may I suggest a comprimise of still limiting units on tiles, but higher than the absolute point currently set by Civ5. A suggestion I have once suggested is 5 units per turn, plus an Army unit like from Civilization III or CivRev where three of the same unit combine into an army that takes the cost of one unit on the tile, thus adding up to 15 units on a tile. I simply don't see a problem with 1U/T.
I don't actively go out to find threads explaining these things simply because I tend to think they are very pious and one-sided, ultimately opinions tend to be as are my own to which I accept as much. So I originally ask what the known facts are about the game. The only reason I barked at you before was simply because you provided opinion as opposed to fact which I was not asking for. As you can see I don't react well when opinion is treated as fact.
hewhocaves who made you the speaker of all Civ-fans?
Speak for yourself if you feel the need to speak.
Civ5 is the best Civ I ever played. Its fun to play and so far I had zero (yes exactly zero) crashes. And I played for one month with a mashine below minimum requirements! Now that I upgraded my comp it runs realy fast even on huge maps with all civs and citystates. Maybe the reason is that a) my Civ5 is an original and no pirated version b) same goes for my windows c) I run all updates and keep my PC absolutely virus, worm and malware-free all the time.
My opinion is, that many people here use minimum hardware to run a stolen OS invested with every possible virus and then blame the company when theire pirate-copy of Civ5 fails to work properly. Not everyone, but a significant part of the community, for sure!
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that he, hewhocaves, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why he is your spokesman.
Now that that's cleared up, why would anyone expect the (quite many) fans who were disappointed by Civilization 5 to also be indifferent to it? You can't be both disappointed and indifferent to something -- they're mutually exclusive emotional states.
Why do people complain about Civilization 5? They don't like it and they feel let down because they had high expectations for it.
Separate names with a comma.