Is civ 5 a step in the right direction or the wrong direction.

[puwen]

I guess my opinion will differ from lots of other people, btw I didn't vote.

I didn't vote because depending on the question, it will give different answer

On the right direction....I still need to know the origin to answer if the destination is right or not.

To tell my civ experience, I've bought every civgame up untill Civ IV including all expansions before IV. When I bought IV I played it for awhile and never felt any new inspiration.

Even when I bought Civ III I felt it was good with every new patch even before the first expansion, and therefore bought all expansions. But with Civ IV I never got the "feeling", can't explain it better. So played it for a few month then put it on the shelf. After every patch i tried a game or 2 but never felt it was something for me. With that experiense I never bought any of the expansions to Civ IV.

So to answer the question. From CivIII conquest or Civ IV vanilla I feel the game has absolutley moved in the right direction, with some maybees.

The maybees I'll mention is from a pure Civ III PoV

Not beeing able to from turn to turn mm your cities to perform the best to your liking.
This might strange from someone who liked MOO1&2 over 3. But in a civ game I like to be able to controll everything, especially the city specialiation wich was a plus in IV compared to III.

Another plus is the easy management, which might sound like a paradox compared to the above one, but the differense playing against some of the best gamers in pbm in Civ III and just having fun in CivV makes it true. You always have to distinguish PvP vs PvE.

Then you always have the graphics, which I don't care about. MY example is, I rather play the 97¨orginal of Pirates on the C64 then the uppgraded version from Firaxis.
Btw Pirates is the offlinegame I've spent most money on becuase of different accident on all from spilling water on my enhancer2000 drive from my parents thrwing the game away and my buying a new one. Anyone else ever spent over 200$ on the first Pirates?

This post may split (better word needed), but from my point of view CivV have moved in the right direction (sorry Sirian and Sulla, my long Civfanatic favoirte writers) but I feel so.

//Happy drunk Puwen

 

[Tatran]

But in a civ game I like to be able to controll everything,

Which is the main difference between CivWorld and the traditional civ games.
Try to manage a civ with 30-40 human players where players are not very committed,
most of them are wonder whores, ignoring military and/or being ignorant to players
who trying to defend the civ from being attacked (and losing all techs + wonders) with their army.

 

[SpearMan153]

wow the votes are even now and that does not take into account all the people run off by the pro civ 5 guys that just berate and bash anyone who does not like civ 5.

Ahh... but are brand new players even joining this particular forum so they can vote yes?

Also doesn't count all the pro civ5 players driven off the general civ5 forum due to constant infighting and civ5 bashing...

But yes its a good indicator of how divisive civ5 has been and the mixed reception its getting from long time fans.

Much work ahead still for the devs

 

[Thormodr]

Ahh... but are brand new players even joining this particular forum so they can vote yes?

Also doesn't count all the pro civ5 players driven off the general civ5 forum due to constant infighting and civ5 bashing...

But yes its a good indicator of how divisive civ5 has been and the mixed reception its getting from long time fans.

Much work ahead still for the devs

Meh. Pretty much what I expected.

Most polls have revealed about a 50/50 split and this one isn't really any different.

It certainly does show how divisive the game has been, I agree.

 

[AznWarlord]

1 unit per tile ftw, too bad the AI doesn't understand the system.

 

[MARDUK80]

I voted for Right direction

Thing I like:
- Hexes
- New road system
- Social Policies
- 1 unit per tile
- New culture borders system (buy to expand)
These come first to my mind.

Things I don't like (too many to mention, but here's top five)
- Game is too easy (AI not good enough)
- Diplomacy (denouncing isn't enough. I would go Civ4 style with plus minus modifiers)
- No religion
- Research Agreements and Technology is too cheap. AI's advance way too fast.
- City States. The concept isn't developed enough. CS's could be fun if added religious, scientific states and CS's would be tied with random events and giving more interesting quests.

 

[Zearo]

Though it infuriated me to no end, I did vote right direction. I'm one of those Civ III addicts that never got into Civ VI at all. Civ V however, though I'll definitely admit it was limited, tweaked my interest.
Like everyone says the one unit per tile completely changed the strategy, and the hex's, as well as looking much better, play much better than the old square system. Once they get the gameplay and the AI right, that will definitely play off.

The thing with Civ V is that there is so much missed opportunity. They could have really revamped diplomacy. Technology has greatly progressed since 2001, yet diplomacy is still essentially the same as it was in Civ III, maybe even in Civ II (I wouldn't know, long before my time ). More options, more brinkmanship, more agreements.

I actually quite liked the addition of city states, but I think the use of non-civ players could be greatly expanded. Think non-state actors; imagine communist or other political rebels springing up within you're civilization, imagine nationalist rebelions from civ's you've long since conquered that you have to physically put down with troops.

My last gripe is low end PC support. I'm sick and tired of the lag, even on my most basic settings. Gaming equality for all

Ultimately Civ V was good, but needs perfecting. They just need to experiment a bit more with the civilization formular. It's all there, but if your going to be revolutionairy, get it right, and go a whole lot further.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Well I think that most of ciV is a step in the right direction, however it is badly implemented. It's more like a trip in the right direction.
Hexes:
1UPT: I think that there are much better ways to stop SODs.
City States: Good idea but badly implemented, City states are to easy to bribe with gold, the penalty for invading an unaligned city state is to great, and city states are too important.
Global happiness: I think there is a place for this, but I think that place is alongside local happiness not in place of it. (For example the Roman people may fell oppressed and discontent but here in the city of Rome it's a party!)
Future era: Here is how I would do future units, you have future armor (possibly some sort of mech), future infantry (Nanosuits), future aircraft (Hmm... something orbital maybe?), and future ships (Zumwalt style vessels possibly equipped with Free Electron Lasers)
Tech tree: Please go back to a cIV style tech tree!
World Builder: Needs in game WB.
AI: Needs professional help! (Hmm my archers can't see the enemy, I'll just send them onto this hill here RIGHT NEXT THE FREAKIN' ENEMY LONGSWORDSMEN.)
Scenarios: There aren't any! This is a problem!
DLC: Yech!
Social Policies: Looks good on paper but doesn't work in practice. Perhaps a (heavily)modified version could exist alongside civics?
New Border expansion: Bravo!
Expansion: Really? I thought we got passed "expand or die" after III.
Feel: Just doesn't feel like civ even III feels like civ and III was the worst.

Maybe civ is just becoming like Star Trek, i.e. Don't trust the odd numbers.

 

[RD-BH]

Right direction:
... hex based mapping
... one unit per tile
... citystates
... smaller higher quality military
... smaller bonuses from tile improvement

Wrong direction:
... 1) randomness
... ... I want strategic not lucky
... ... I have all current DLC yet 4/10 games yield the "random" player civ as babylon
... 2) resource distribution
... ... still inordinate number of maps without horse or iron
... 3) combat AI
... 4) diplomacy
... ... the "mystery" of Civ5 diplomacy is the AI are homicidal psychopaths
... ... I want strategy not gimmick
... 5) tech system/RAs/NC/Great Scientists
... ... I want strategy not gimmick
... 6) great people/specialists system
... 7) culture victory
... 8) victory screen
... 9) removal of health/religion/espionage/corporations
... ... without any strategic alternatives
... ... this single handedly removed most of the depth/immersion/complexity
... 10) economy/rush purchase from T0/building costs/monetary penalties
... ... playing this game leaves me wanting to take a bath
... ... I don't like feeling greedy, heartless, mercenary, or blankety blank
... 11) The Civilopedia - other than the game title, does it inform the user of anything?
... 12) The Civilopedia search engine
... 13) The Manual - other than the game title, does it inform the user of anything?
... 14) Steam Required/Online activation
... ... I think online reqs are an industry-wide mistake
... ... more control does not equal less theft
... ... less theft does not equal more profit
... ... more profit (greed) does not equal better product
... ... better product can equal better reputation
... ... better reputation can equal more profit
... ... more profit (sans greed) can equal research/development
... ... research/development can equal improved product
... ... then again, I'm not being very realistic
... 15) etc, etc, etc

 

[Ezzran]

I didn't select any of the options, and I agree with whoever it was (too lazy to go re-read 5 pages of posts) that said it was a step sideways.

Good:
-1upt
-graphics
-Hexes
-The combat calculation UI that tells you how likely you are to win
-Ranged attacking is actually ranged.
-Cities can bombard enemies.

Bad:
-Poor AI diplomacy.
-Poor AI diplomacy. (That deserves to be said twice)
-Poor AI combat tactics. It seems like the AI is still trying to make the Stack of Death, only it can't stack so it just spams units everywhere.
-This probably falls under diplomacy, but the AI shouldn't be so eager to go to war with you. Even Ghandi (who's programmed to be the most peaceful) went to war with me after I conquered Askia, and he brought like 5 other Civs with him. Luckily, I had a huge military. But the AI shouldn't do that.

Iffy:
-The Social Policies are okay, I guess. I like some of them, but others seems kinda useless and weak *cough Commerce cough* and I liked the freedom to change that we had in Civ IV, whereas in Civ V once you pick something you're stuck with it.
-On a similar vein, I miss the old culture system. If I pumped up my culture enough, I could cause revolts in enemy cities. My favorite thing to do was plant a city near an enemy's capitol and then pump up that city's culture output to something ridiculous and watch as I slowly took over that capitol's land, then finally the city itself, without ever attacking anything.
-So much of the tech tree is pointless in some situations. I feel like every tech should have some use beyond "I have to get this so I can get the next thing past it." in every situation.
-I'm not sure how I feel about the diversity of the civs. In Civ IV, I noticed a difference in playstyle between Bismark and Alexander (Germany and Greece), where in Civ V the differences are more noticeable, but less impactful. I can play towards a Culture victory as Askia, and a Domination victory as Gandhi without noticing much difference. I use each UU the same as I would use the unit they replace, I just like the extra benefits they provide. In Civ IV, I wouldn't dream of going for a Culture victory as Greece unless I wanted a challenge.

Just my 20 cents or so.

 

[Tatran]

In Civ IV, I wouldn't dream of going for a Culture victory as Greece unless I wanted a challenge.

-> Pericles

 

[Ezzran]

-> Pericles

Never had him as an option, oddly enough. Then again, I never had the expacs, so that might be why. Or it's a glitch. One or the other. Maybe I should have been more specific:
I would never have dreamed of going for a culture victory as Alexander....

 

[Thormodr]

I didn't select any of the options, and I agree with whoever it was (too lazy to go re-read 5 pages of posts) that said it was a step sideways.

Good:
-1upt
-graphics
-Hexes
-The combat calculation UI that tells you how likely you are to win
-Ranged attacking is actually ranged.
-Cities can bombard enemies.

Bad:
-Poor AI diplomacy.
-Poor AI diplomacy. (That deserves to be said twice)
-Poor AI combat tactics. It seems like the AI is still trying to make the Stack of Death, only it can't stack so it just spams units everywhere.
-This probably falls under diplomacy, but the AI shouldn't be so eager to go to war with you. Even Ghandi (who's programmed to be the most peaceful) went to war with me after I conquered Askia, and he brought like 5 other Civs with him. Luckily, I had a huge military. But the AI shouldn't do that.

Iffy:
-The Social Policies are okay, I guess. I like some of them, but others seems kinda useless and weak *cough Commerce cough* and I liked the freedom to change that we had in Civ IV, whereas in Civ V once you pick something you're stuck with it.
-On a similar vein, I miss the old culture system. If I pumped up my culture enough, I could cause revolts in enemy cities. My favorite thing to do was plant a city near an enemy's capitol and then pump up that city's culture output to something ridiculous and watch as I slowly took over that capitol's land, then finally the city itself, without ever attacking anything.
-So much of the tech tree is pointless in some situations. I feel like every tech should have some use beyond "I have to get this so I can get the next thing past it." in every situation.
-I'm not sure how I feel about the diversity of the civs. In Civ IV, I noticed a difference in playstyle between Bismark and Alexander (Germany and Greece), where in Civ V the differences are more noticeable, but less impactful. I can play towards a Culture victory as Askia, and a Domination victory as Gandhi without noticing much difference. I use each UU the same as I would use the unit they replace, I just like the extra benefits they provide. In Civ IV, I wouldn't dream of going for a Culture victory as Greece unless I wanted a challenge.

Just my 20 cents or so.

Sage words indeed.

Welcome to the Forums.

 

[Ezzran]

Sage words indeed.

Welcome to the Forums.

Thank you.

EDIT to avoid double post: I found this thread linked in the Rants thread, and realised it applied to this discussion almost perfectly. It explains why Civ V is not very fun for very long, and lays it out in (to me) an easy to understand way.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=400803

 

[jbevermore]

Well I think that most of ciV is a step in the right direction, however it is badly implemented. It's more like a trip in the right direction.

Maybe civ is just becoming like Star Trek, i.e. Don't trust the odd numbers.

Quoted because I love the first quote.

Also quoted because once again I'm the only person on the planet it seems that liked the first Star Trek movie.

 

[turtlefang]

I've played Civ II to Civ V. Civ III was by far the most fun for me when it came out.

Civ IV - which many in this forum seem to like the best, simply bored me. I could never get into the game or enjoy it very much. Don't know why, but it just seemed more mechanical than fun.

Civ V, I enjoy. It has a number of faults, mostly centered on the AI not understanding how to move or make war AND a poor diplomacy game.

But for my 2 cents, it make a number of ground breaking (for Civ) changes in the right direction;

- 1 Unit per Hex
- Hexes
- Making gold useful
- Graphics
- Making roads cost money (which I regard as superhighways) so they don't go everywhere and make the defense absolutely supreme due to movement
- Range units mean something
(and I know its silly that riflemen can't shot two hexes and bowman can, but all games have these types of mechanics)
- City defense (thank the stars)
- City states meaning something other than just something to kill or take over
- The border expansion
- And you can win by going tall or going wide

It did blow it on some major issues:

- Global happiness. Frankly, its sucks.
- The AI can't handle a lot of the changes. It needs a lot of improvement regarding combat, city planning, unit movement and diplomacy.

This represents an execution issue rather than a design issue but execution issues are just as important as design issues.

- When it first came out, the amount of time it took to run a turn. This simply turn off a number of players. This design flaw should NEVER has been allowed to go to publication. I know for a fact that a number of my friends will NEVER play Civ again due to this single issue.
- The UN/political victory. Simply bad design in my opinion.
- AL being required for most modern units and in very short supply, oil not a critical resource
- Abuse of the RA system
- Naval and air combat (or lack of) system
- Lack of an effective MP game

You can argue about other design features (resource distribution), SP, tech tree, number of buildings, but these are more immersion trade offs that a designer has to balance between hard core players and general public.

And then there's STEAM, love it or hate it. MWF I love it, TThS I hate it, on Sunday I flip a coin.

And all I can say with certainty, whatever the designer chooses, someone will be there to tell him he chose wrong.

At the end of the day, I think Civ V represents a step in the right direction. To maintain the franchise, it HAS to appeal to the general public as well as the hard core. And I don't think a "son of CIV IV" would have done that.

The single biggest problem centers on AI execution in handling the new system. But the AI wasn't that great in Civ III or Civ IV either.

If the AI play would improves, then a lot of these issues would go away - or become less important. If it doesn't, then many of these issues don't matter anyway. Poor AI play on a great system simply won't make it a classic over time.

 

[Leif Roar]

- The AI can't handle a lot of the changes. It needs a lot of improvement regarding combat, city planning, unit movement and diplomacy.

This represents an execution issue rather than a design issue but execution issues are just as important as design issues.

I'm not so sure that's not really a design issue after all. With the current state of AI technology, if you want a game to have a strong AI, you really need to design the game to be "AI friendly." The rules of the game need to be such that the AI, at least with some added heuristics and sensible shortcuts, does not have too many possible solutions that must be evaluated. Chess rather than Go.

In particular, the "Game of 15" style unit movement caused by the chosen 1upt design is "AI unfriendly." A lot could have been done to make for a stronger combat AI by choosing a slightly different design of 1upt.

Which isn't to say that the implementation of the AI isn't also a problem.

 

[Brownsfan02]

It's a step in the right direction, but with some strings attached

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Quoted because I love the first quote.

Also quoted because once again I'm the only person on the planet it seems that liked the first Star Trek movie.

The first was good but it was written as a TV episode script. Hence the motionless picture.

 

[turtlefang]

Leif Roar -

You maybe right regarding the execution vs design issues. I'm not a computer programmer other than some database execution languages.

To me, the 1upt issue represents a decision by the game designer to get away from the stacks of doom and increase the importance of combined arms (range & melee in combination).

Your point seems to be that it overly complicates the ability of the AI to make "good moves" by creating bottlenecks/too many decision points on due to lack of stacking. (Which, in the end game, with a large number of units on tight fronts, is very true for me due to unit congestion driven by the lack of stacking.)

I've played other computer games where this doesn't seem to be the case. But the focus was extremely different than Civ and long term strategic choices clearer. So the problem - to me - seems lack of development in the AI.

Maybe the issue is the lack of stacking and going to 2upt (or 3 or whatever) could greatly increase the tactical ability of the AI?