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

[andrewlt]

Learn to play Civ V, instead of trying to play it like Civ IV and then complaining when it doesn't work.

There are things that are wrong with V, but being limited to three cities is not one of them. Yes it's harder to grow, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Here's a shot of part of my Empire in my last game. As you can see, growing beyond 3 is not only possible, you can get good gold and happiness (and science) while you do it.

Seriously, you've conquered your entire continent (in a map that looks like it's on large setting) and you only have 9 cities to show for it? And some of them are tiny (1 size-17 and everything else low teens)? And you think that's a good design decision to limit players that way?

I've had that in my previous game in a large map, too. I kept a settler that I didn't use for 300+ turns because I couldn't justify planting that next city. I razed everything on the other continent because the game put too many penalties for annexing them.

 

[hclass]

Seriously, you've conquered your entire continent (in a map that looks like it's on large setting) and you only have 9 cities to show for it? And some of them are tiny (1 size-17 and everything else low teens)? And you think that's a good design decision to limit players that way?

I've had that in my previous game in a large map, too. I kept a settler that I didn't use for 300+ turns because I couldn't justify planting that next city. I razed everything on the other continent because the game put too many penalties for annexing them.

In Civ4, with huge map, I always have more than 70 cities at about 1800 AC.
I usually end huge map Civ4 (BtS) game with more than 100 cities.
I think, a group of 7-9 cities still not qualified as a Civilization.

 

[Ludikraut]

Instead of getting rewards, you are punished for most of what you have done (or to do), am I right. Great! That it is, the end of Civ series.

I think I have read enough negetive opinions of Civ5, I just want to know if the below describes Civ5 correctly (btw I have not bought Civ5 yet)

1. Civ5 only allows one to play with about 10 cities, going beyond that, building a big empire is seriously discouraged by so called global happiness. Those who like to explore the globe and build a big empire can say good bye to this game, right?
Is there anyone play Civ5 and manage to build a big empire?

and:

2. It took forever for one to complete a building, particularly a World Wonder, right?

3. Many said no one can afford constructing every type of buildings in a city. So, what did current Civ5 players do beside fighting a war, since they can't afford many buildings in a city?

It all sounds like Civ5 is like an animal being chop off everything while still keeping it alive... I mean they chop off its nose, ears, limbs, tails, hairs, nails (whatever as long as it won't kills it)... leaving Civ players with a bare animal torso and that torso is blanket with a cloth with Hex patterns where every Hex has 1Up.

Only those who like the blanket will like Civ5... you will find it disgusting if you taste the torso, am I right?
Man how dare they charge USD60.00 for sich a bad meal...

To answer your questions:

1. No, managing a large empire in Civ 5 is easier than in previous Civ's. Unfortunately there are some stability issues, maybe even a hard cap on how many cities you can have. In my second game I had a 70 city empire, but could not go to 71, as the game would crash every time.

2. Wonders don't really seem to take any longer than they used to. Some just take longer than others.

3. It is possible to have a lot of buildings in your cities. Of course if the city is in crappy terrain, it will limit how quickly it can build - no different than previous Civ games.

I like some of the concepts being explored in Civ 5 - the hexes, the 1up hex, etc. However, a lousy AI, and most importantly, a hellaciously unstable and buggy game has me seriously wishing I could get my money back. I don't usually complain about game purchases, but this really is the first time that I wish I could have my money back as I feel I've been cheated by S2K, Firaxis and everyone involved in the marketing of this game.

l8r)

 

[da_Vinci]

1. No, managing a large empire in Civ 5 is easier than in previous Civ's. Unfortunately there are some stability issues, maybe even a hard cap on how many cities you can have. In my second game I had a 70 city empire, but could not go to 71, as the game would crash every time.

2. Wonders don't really seem to take any longer than they used to. Some just take longer than others.

3. It is possible to have a lot of buildings in your cities. Of course if the city is in crappy terrain, it will limit how quickly it can build - no different than previous Civ games.

When you say large empire is easier to manage in Civ 5 ... do you mean easier because there are fewer details in each city to mess with, or do you mean that you find the game limiting features in Civ 5 put less of a damper on your expansion than in Civ 4?

Those 70 cities, what diff level, and are they puppets, annexes, or settled?

Also, what speeds are your comments refereing to? I get a sense that game experience can depend a lot on diff, speed and map size.

dV

 

[da_Vinci]

I think the biggest problem is that previous Civs reward players for making certain decisions while Civ 5 punishes players for making certain decisions. The game is all about punishment and not much on reward.

You get punished for annexing cities. You get punished for expanding. You get punished for growing your cities. You get punished for building later buildings (since they're almost all crap compared to their production and maintenance costs). You get punished for puppeting unless you avoid certain technologies beforehand. You get punished for building roads Almost every thing I can do feels like a punishment that I just go "Screw it, I'm just going to burn all the AI cities to the ground." That's about the only fun left in the game.

And I agree with AndrewLT too; Civ5 raps you on the knuckles any time you start to deviate from the True Path, which is a very different experience than previous Civ games, which felt much more open-ended and filled with possibility.

I have described this as the difference between chosing your own path on a blank canvas, and finding the one true path in a maze. The problem with a maze is that once you solve it, it becomes uninteresting.

Now you might say that there was one or a few optimal paths in prior Civ games, but I think those were the most rewarding paths, not the least punishing paths. It is just a different feel to the game.

dV

 

[Ludikraut]

When you say large empire is easier to manage in Civ 5 ... do you mean easier because there are fewer details in each city to mess with, or do you mean that you find the game limiting features in Civ 5 put less of a damper on your expansion than in Civ 4?

Those 70 cities, what diff level, and are they puppets, annexes, or settled?

Also, what speeds are your comments refereing to? I get a sense that game experience can depend a lot on diff, speed and map size.

dV

I found happiness much more difficult to manage in Civ III and IV. My 70 city game is on Prince, huge map, continents, standard speed, full set of Civs. I own one entire continent, with about 10 cities on the 'other' continent and was about to mop up the rest of the planet. About a 30/70 split between annexed/puppet cities, although I was making rapid inroads to that in the few turns before the game crashed.

l8r)