I think I know why Civ V isn't fun (compared to Civs I-IV)

[shinkicker]

You can load a game from outside the game? Or do you mean you have to go to the pre-game opening menu?

There are two ways to load a save:

One is by pressing ESC while in a running game and selecting "Load". This is the option that seems to be bloating save files with nonsense "xxxxxxFINAL_RELEASE" strings until the save is 2, 3, or 5 times bigger than normal and runs like crap.

The other method is to quit Civ5 and restart it.

 

[DocRock]

It lacks fun because there is nothing to do and very little to think about while playing. It is as if the devs are holding the players hand throughout.

Mandatory resource improvements, simplified tech tree, largely useless buildings, bland wonders (a few exceptions) etc. Even if the AI was sorted so it could compete in combat, the game still wouldn't engage in the same way as previous Civs did.
There are no large sacrifices/compromises to consider other than maybe policy choices but you can win without ever choosing a single one .. just imagine playing Civ4 without changing civics, you'd be utterly annihilated.

Unfortunately I cannot identify one single thing that would 'make it all better' as it is the combination of the universal healthcare (happiness), "sameness" resources plus the utter and complete gold focus that all games seems to boil down to.
Fixing the AI, diplomacy and what not will not make it more fun but could potentially make it more challenging which I fear is all we can hope for.

You've got the exact point. It's just boring. I got addicted to all parts of Civ, but Civ V managed to made me quit after 4 games (2 completed). Spending hundreds of years switching through your workers building the same enhancements over and over again before you dismiss all of them shortly after. Waiting 50 turns for the UN to be complete without doing ANYTHING else.

This game lacks everything. I will certainly wait buying the expansion until I read some comments here, as the official can't be trusted anymore (except 1UP in this case)

 

[danisans]

Two things from the above:

1. It reminds me of one of my thread regarding "rewards" given in a game - how important it is to make Civ an interesting game. The thread title is something like "I just want Civ5 to be a joyful game" if I recall it correctly. That thread was posted not long before the release of Civ5 and people have disagreed with me for what I emphasized. For them I just wonder how do they feel while playing Civ5 like you have described.

2. Your description of your feel while playing Civ5, make me want to cry angrily... (I consider myself very loyal to Civ game though I crictises Firaxis most of the time, I just want to make them better... sigh!)

I am a huge fan of Civ since Civ II and I am NOT one of those who plays the first game of a new Civ version and declares: "I am removing this game from my hard disk and reinstalling my previous version of Civ". I know that sticking with the new version will eventually force me to adapt to the new game mechanics. I remember my first game of Civ III where the other Civs on my continent completely boxed me in with their mad Settler rushes to expand. My first game of Civ IV, I expand like mad and my economy went down the tube, ending with my Civ way behind in techs and having every Civ declare war on me. I lost these first games on Civ III and Civ IV, but I learned from them with this simple statement: "Guess I can't do that anymore. I will need to adopt strategy A, B or C from now on." But those new strategies were fun to implement, you just had to not be set in your old ways. With Civ V, I am seeing possible winning strategies but they all seem boring to implement (I like to play large sprawling Civs with lots of culture and winning on Domination).

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Now we get to Civ V, where virtually nothing that you do seems to matter.

I take it you're the sort of guy who doesn't like looking at the big picture. Always needs to have something exciting going on in every turn, right?

Expanding past your first ten cities or so gets prohbitably expensive.

Who would have thought a large empire would require a lot of upkeep?

There's not a wonder in the game that you lose out on much if an opponent builds it.

Strategies based on getting wonders. I prefer not to have that.

The combat AI is attrocious,

A genuine fault.

which means you can beat the computer at war even if you fall behind in technology.

That's a bad thing? There's more to war than technological superiority.

I feel the reason that Civ V isn't as fun as the previous versions is because there aren't any 'good' actions you can take that don't have significant drawbacks.

I like that. Being forced to make difficult choices makes me think about strategy.

 

[Ogaburan]

Just FYI, no, it is not possible. The game cannot handle the player having more than 70 cities. Try and build or capture your 71st city and your game will crash, forcing yout raze cities and forego any further expansion unless you want to abandon that save and start over.

I guess i am lucky my computer cant support that much...

 

[hclass]

I take it you're the sort of guy who doesn't like looking at the big picture. Always needs to have something exciting going on in every turn, right?

I am the type of guy who like to look at big picture as well as have something exciting going on every turn. So, your two statements do not have an absolute relation.

Who would have thought a large empire would require a lot of upkeep?

What would then provide one with the gold/hapiness for upkeep?
Like Religion in Civ4 for gold? No?
Like Corporation in Civ4 for gold? No?
Shouldn't there be a possible way to keep a damn large empire (so fit the title Civilization), through interesting way?

Strategies based on getting wonders. I prefer not to have that.

Firaxis, ymfk #%$#%#%#, give me back my wonder race!!!
(I remember I have said something like the above some time in a pre-Civ5 release post)

"The combat AI is attrocious,"
A genuine fault.

Is that so hard to code a good fighting A.I.???
It is now 1Up, that suppose to be much easier compare to the past (taking unlimited railroad movement into account).
Damn the programmers...

That's a bad thing? There's more to war than technological superiority.

I haven't seen anyone shot down a jet fighter with a slingshot yet, irregardless of how skillful that slingshot master is... I think tech really matter in war.

"I feel the reason that Civ V isn't as fun as the previous versions is because there aren't any 'good' actions you can take that don't have significant drawbacks."
I like that. Being forced to make difficult choices makes me think about strategy.

I am genetically borned to be strategic, no force needed. I don't think it is fun to be forced to become anything...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I am the type of guy who like to look at big picture as well as have something exciting going on every turn. So, your two statements do not have an absolute relation.

Yes, well, I guess I just have a longer attention span. If that's your playing style, then it's none of my business.

What would then provide one with the gold/hapiness for upkeep?
Like Religion in Civ4 for gold? No?
Like Corporation in Civ4 for gold? No?
Shouldn't there be a possible way to keep a damn large empire (so fit the title Civilization), through interesting way?

Social policies, trading posts, gold tiles, trade routes, buildings (the early buildings are more efficient hammer-wise, so empires large in terms of cities as opposed to population can have more of them), selling extra resources for gold.

Is that so hard to code a good fighting A.I.???
It is now 1Up, that suppose to be much easier compare to the past (taking unlimited railroad movement into account).
Damn the programmers...

Some things are easier said than done.

I haven't seen anyone shot down a jet fighter with a slingshot yet, irregardless of how skillful that slingshot master is... I think tech really matter in war.

Of course, the most ridiculous example. You sure invalidated my point, you did. I was thinking more along the lines of the Battle of Isandlwana. And maybe even the Afghanistan conflict.

I am genetically borned to be strategic, no force needed. I don't think it is fun to be forced to become anything...

Oh, so your "strategy" games shouldn't have dilemmas. How boring.

 

[SpiritWolf]

Looooooooooong build times really bother me. I normally play epic speed in Civ IV but it's unplayable in Civ V. "Quick" speed in Civ V feels more like epic in Civ IV. I'd hate to imagine marathon.

 

[Ogaburan]

Looooooooooong build times really bother me. I normally play epic speed in Civ IV but it's unplayable in Civ V. "Quick" speed in Civ V feels more like epic in Civ IV. I'd hate to imagine marathon.

DL the mode, "quick build marathon".
I am quite happy with the speed.

 

[hclass]

Yes, well, I guess I just have a longer attention span. If that's your playing style, then it's none of my business.

Sure.
But do you agree that your guess is based on a wrong believe of something unrelated to what you have commented?

Social policies, trading posts, gold tiles, trade routes, buildings (the early buildings are more efficient hammer-wise, so empires large in terms of cities as opposed to population can have more of them), selling extra resources for gold.

You forget about the word "interesting".
Are they as interesting or as fun, as religion and corporation in Civ4?
I believe most of those elements in your list are problem makers in Civ5. People are complaining about crazy build of trading post by the AI, intolerable slow building speed etc. Go read around and see what the mess they are... sigh!

Some things are easier said than done.

I am sorry for I have forgotten to tell you that I am a programmer.
I know the difference in coding an strategy capable AI VS tactic capable AI.
Trust me, the latter is much easier. Anyone (particularly a programmer) who has experience coding a Chess game knows that.

Of course, the most ridiculous example. You sure invalidated my point, you did. I was thinking more along the lines of the Battle of Isandlwana. And maybe even the Afghanistan conflict.

Then you shouldn't blame me, I won't know along which line is your thinking... I am just ordinary person, not a Super mind reader.

Oh, so your "strategy" games shouldn't have dilemmas. How boring.

Dilemmas are related to the "capability" to make decision - be it a good or bad choice. Therefore, if to be strategic is a function, dilemma shall not be its factor. They both have no direct relation.

Strategically speaking, no one should have dilemmas in a game, particularly one like CIV. I mean, you just simply choose one among the options... there isn't a chance for you to go beyond what the game rules (and bugs if any) allowed. i.e. if you hesitate a lot in Civ, it simply means you are weak in decision making, that shouldn't be related directly to whether or not the game offer real strategic choices. Understand? Don't? I mean, someone who is weak in decision making will often hesitate... I am lucky I am not borned that way.

 

[lschnarch]

hclass:
The problems of Civ V are difficult to describe.

It seems that nothing really fits.
In the beginning, "organic" was used over and over. Mountains and continents were said to look "organic". Rivers should flow in an "organic" way.
The problem is, the game doesn't feel organic. It feels like a ... game.
You are not creating an empire, you are dealing with questionable game rules and try to make the best out of it.

Sure, Sullla has proven that you can have many cities. It comes at the price of artificially capping them at 4 pop. These cities do nothing else than making money (trading posts in each worked tile/hex).

Sure, each city could work 36 external hexes, which gives you quite some flexibility in placing your cities.
This, I think, was the reason for allowing for this number of hexes - the flexibility in placement, not to have them all worked.
The backside is, that after the inner circle of six, each new hex will be acquired by accumulated city culture. Which hex this will be, is decided by the engine - and these decisions aren't very good.
If you want to have a different hex attached, you have to buy it. Each purchase raises the costs for the next purchase, and the farther the tile is away from your city center, the more it costs.

Roxlimn tells you big stories about an "army" of 8 or 16 units.
For me, this is not an army. It's a joke. It's the Palace Guard, at best.
Yet, it is sufficient not only to survice, but to to win against the enemy.
It feels strange and wrong and -- gamey.

You are sitting in front of a game. As you did with all civilization games - but this time, the game points it out to: "Hey guy, you aren't building an empire! Your are not! You are playing a game with restricted options.
Did I mention that you are just playing a game? No? Well, you are just playing a game!"

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You forget about the word "interesting".
Are they as interesting or as fun, as religion and corporation in Civ4?

Corporations were essentially like religion, only they provided resources when you didn't have any. And the only interesting thing religion gave was the diplomatic blocs it created. Both have been replaced by City States.

And I find the Social Policies to be quite interesting.

I believe most of those elements in your list are problem makers in Civ5.

What's wrong with trade routes and buildings?

People are complaining about crazy build of trading post by the AI

What are you even trying to say here?

intolerable slow building speed etc.

Making buildings cheaper could be an improvement. I do not know at the moment what balancing needs to be done if that happens.

I am sorry for I have forgotten to tell you that I am a programmer.
I know the difference in coding an strategy capable AI VS tactic capable AI.
Trust me, the latter is much easier. Anyone (particularly a programmer) who has experience coding a Chess game knows that.

That's nice. So you should be able to code a better Civ V AI easily then?

Strategically speaking, no one should have dilemmas in a game, particularly one like CIV.

Are strategy games not supposed to have difficult choices? If yes, why? It's much less a game of thought when there is always one easy, clear choice to pick.

 

[JudgeDeath]

hclass:

Sure, Sullla has proven that you can have many cities. It comes at the price of artificially capping them at 4 pop.

Well it seems that Sulla is wrong. You can easily have multiple cities that are considerably larger than 4. And you can have a pile of buildings. You just have to approach things differently than you would have in Civ IV.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Well it seems that Sulla is wrong. You can easily have multiple cities that are considerably larger than 4. And you can have a pile of buildings. You just have to approach things differently than you would have in Civ IV.

To be precise, you can have up to 70 cities before the game crashes, and they can be size 12 each with 3 happiness buildings. However, you can grow cities to size 4 very quickly, build only 1 happiness building, and get a much better return on investment. It's very obvious from reading the pre-game interviews that this was not intended: why have a mechanism (happiness) which in fact has no bearing if you micromanage the dickens out of your cities? But only up to a certain size?

The reason why folks come to this utterly hokey solution is that they adopted a fixed happiness cap with no adjustments for map size. This is just programming laziness, entirely typical unfortunately for this game. It's as if they really didn't care how the game played on big maps, just as they didn't care how it played on slow speeds. One size fits all, it sort of worked on the one where they tested it, and then they didn't bother to ask if the answer made sense elsewhere.

I'd file it in the same place as the severe annex penalty (so that you're pretty much always better off razing and rebuilding) and the puppets building random junk.

 

[Ricci]

Spot on. Civilization 5: Total War is a massive disappointment.

There's no fun or joy in playing it anymore.

There's little to no immersion and you truly don't feel like you are building an empire to stand the test of time.

Do you agree by now that the game has indeed derailed from CIVs 1 to 4 Thor???

 

[hclass]

Corporations were essentially like religion, only they provided resources when you didn't have any.

Are we talking about corporation in Civ4?
My Civ4 corporations consume resources to provide me with gold, food, science or culture values. How come yours sound totally opposite? Further more my Civ4 corporations always provide me with what it suppose to as long as I have not lost any resources it required, it never wait until I "didn't have any", there isn't such a condition.

And the only interesting thing religion gave was the diplomatic blocs it created.

Not true.
I dislike all diplomatic features in Civ (whatever you do with the F4 screen), how come I still find religion interesting?
I like the golds I can collect through religion shrines and its does not taste like corporation at all.

Both have been replaced by City States.

That is the root of a big problem. City states have been badly implemented. Didn't you read about all the complains?

And I find the Social Policies to be quite interesting.

Better than Civ4's Civics + the slider of gold vs science vs culture?
I read a lot about how shallow Social Policies is, how helpless players are...

What's wrong with trade routes and buildings?

Building are not wrong, they just become useless due to timing. Again, read those complains. They couldn't be false because people are paying for the game and yet being frustrated by it so much.

Making buildings cheaper could be an improvement. I do not know at the moment what balancing needs to be done if that happens.

According to what I have read about Civ5, it seems no single adjustment can save the game.

That's nice. So you should be able to code a better Civ V AI easily then?

I don't know for I am not paid and have not tried. But tatical logics are easier to be implemented than strategic logics, that one is for sure. So, again, damn the Civ5 programmers.

Are strategy games not supposed to have difficult choices?

I find it funny, for your wording change from "Strategy" to "Dilemmas" then "difficult choices".
It is like the weigh has been lighten step by step...
Anyway, the answer to your question is NO. I would suggest you to replace the word "difficult" with "smart", than it should sound more appropriate.

If yes, why? It's much less a game of thought when there is always one easy, clear choice to pick.

In this case, I think you are not the only one, I have seen many claim picking a right option is strategy, in fact it isn't. Some said (I think that includes you), the more difficult to make a choice, the more strategic one has to be. That is simply wrong.

Let me quote you an example, say you want to attack an opponent city:
1. Ploting exactly when to start attack, the number of units, what kind of units and should it be a sudden attack from which direction, are all strategy.

2. During the war, choosing to attack enemy unit A first then unit B, uses your long range unit A to attack first then follow by malle unit B, are not strategic, they are simply tactical choices.

Now, in Civ, for 1. there isn't any interface, any option list for you to choose... therefore, there isn't such thing as difficult choices that make you think strategically.
You might hesitate quite often when come to pick a choice while playing Civ, but I bet you are facing tactical choices, rather than what you have always believe as strategy.

 

[Quagga]

My thoughts about why it's not fun:

1. Too slow. It takes way too long after Next Turn.
2. The only buildings worth building are those that provide happiness. What's the fun of that?
3. Wonders aren't wonderful. None of them are crying out to be built.
4. Units keep crossing paths when moving, requiring restarting their moves.
5. Can afford to have only a handful or so of units and it takes forever to get them from point A to point B.
6. No idea what's happening with diplomacy. Not that I really care, since the AIs never help me in any way, except to buy my luxury items.
7. No room to get my siege units into the battle. I spend way too much effort trying to get these guys close enough to use.
8. Bribing city states is a bore.
9. Managing great generals is way more work than it's worth.
10. Only one good choice for each Great Person type: Golden Age for all, except Great Scientist (lightbulb).

 

[lschnarch]

Well it seems that Sulla is wrong. You can easily have multiple cities that are considerably larger than 4. And you can have a pile of buildings. You just have to approach things differently than you would have in Civ IV.

I admit, I was unprecise in my statement.

You have a cap of 15 luxury resources giving 5 each. Additionally, you have the 7 natural wonders. Then, you have the Piety branch of the Social Politics, and some buildings and wonders.

So, to build a great empire, you have a cap of happiness, which has to be divided between what is going to be your "main" cities, while all the other ones are limited to what the buildings inside provide for these "filler cities", as Sullla called them.

This looks good or at least acceptable at first glance, but becomes a tedious and "artificial" feeling kind of micro-management, if you really want to make use of it.

First, it is quite difficult to get access to all the luxury resources. Playing on huge continent maps typically gives you access to around 6 or 7 of these.
To do so, you have to go for the quick and early landgrab, which forces you to settle quite far away from your capital.
Some of the luxuries you may even get from City States, but this requires them to be allies, which comes at a high price. This now forces you to spam trading posts, which in turn does not benefit your production.
Even less, since all these cities count against your culture rate, which in turn forces you to ally with cultural City States, which costs you money, which requires you to spam even more trading posts.

Since your cities are spread over the continent, roads (trade routes) very often are cost intensive instead of giving you a net income.
But you want to have these roads, as otherwise you will have to split your "army" (the small pile of troops) because somehow you will have to protect your cities.
Since these are so wide spread, you are neighbouring all of the other nations on your continent, which means that you can be attacked at any time at any front.
Which forces you to build more troops with you low production, but these troops are counting against your income.

If you miscalculate, you run out of support for the troops, which harms your production even more.

And so on, and so on.

I will admit that all these components may fit better on smaller maps, but on huge maps the result of the game mechanics is tedious micro-management for no gain.
In any way - especially since you don't get any viable support from the so-called "advisors" or information screens - it doesn't give you any feeling of nation building.

The over-advertised "accessibility" of the game is only true if you stay with very small number in each aspect:
small number of cities
small number of troops
small size of the map
...
having a small-minded game.

 

[Padapolis]

I tend to agree eith the OP. Civ V just doesn't seem to be as enjoyable as the previous Civilization games. Civ IV in particular was a great joy to play, and through its complexity often difficult to master. But much of what made Civ IV great seems to have been forgotten in Civ V. And sometimes it's just the little things that I miss. For example why can I not click on a unit and see where it is going? When looking at the military advisor screen why can't I click on a unit to activate it? Why can't I sell unwanted buildings? Where is my clock and alarm, without using a mod and throwing away any achievements I may earn? And since I'm doing a little rant here, why not give us a filter in the strategic view that shows us exactly which tiles on the map are actually being used by our cities?
For me it's just the little things that really holds this game back from being great. Hopefully Fraxis will do the right thing and restore Civilization back to its proper greatness.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Are we talking about corporation in Civ4?
My Civ4 corporations consume resources to provide me with gold, food, science or culture values.

Yes, City States don't provide food, science (nope, absolutely no policy in the Patronage tree for that), or culture.

I dislike all diplomatic features in Civ (whatever you do with the F4 screen), how come I still find religion interesting?
I like the golds I can collect through religion shrines and its does not taste like corporation at all.

Yes, you do. However, you are not me.

That is the root of a big problem. City states have been badly implemented. Didn't you read about all the complains?

Yes, I have read all the complaints, and they should be trashed. Just like how I dumped my car in the river when it broke down. How am I gonna fix such a problem anyway? Might as well go back to public transportation.

I read a lot about how shallow Social Policies is, how helpless players are...

Elaborate. Right now it sounds like you're just throwing words into sentences haphazardly.

Building are not wrong, they just become useless due to timing.

I don't know, those Spaceship Factories shaved a dozen turns of my science victory. Maybe you just don't know how to use them?

According to what I have read about Civ5, it seems no single adjustment can't save the game.

You sound like those people who keep insisting on seeing Obama's birth certificate.
*begins to wonder if he is being trolled*

I don't know

That settles that then.

You might hesitate quite often when come to pick a choice while playing Civ, but I bet you are facing tactical choices, rather than what you have always believe as strategy.

Yes, they are tactical choices. I would still prefer them to be difficult. And tactics eventually segue into strategy in the long run ("Right now, should I build libraries or buy tiles for Trade Posts? Which would give me more research over the course of 200 turns?").