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

[Gunship_Down]

Definitely the right direction. 1UPT is a brilliant move, and fixes all the stupid stack 'o doom issues that plagued the previous games. It now actually feels you are commanding an army, rather than a bunch of blocks. Navies are finally interesting. And the social tree system is a lot better than the policies in the previous game.

I also like the DLC packages so far. Keep up the good work!

 

[thadian]

ok, another post, this time in the right direction.

I like 1upt. I agree it feels like im commanding a real army and can't make the same mirror army every game. (3 stacks, each with 4 catapaults, 4 archers, 4 spearman, 4 warrior) though it would be nice to make 1-stacks.

That is, i feel i should be able to put one unit of each type into a stack.
1 siege, 1 archer, 1 melee, 1 civillian... It would add more dimensionality but keep the benefits of 1upt. it would also lessen bad AI army structure.

Collataral Damage should also be brought back as a control mechanism.

Edit: Post-Patch, i like the social policies but im annoyed i have to click options every time i play because i don't want to be stuck taking the bone of a bad policy or miss my beeline timing. I would rather the game count how many "Policies" i could pick and give me unhappiness (Your stopping cultural advancement!) as a regulator.

 

[RD-BH]

... I would rather the game count how many "Policies" i could pick and give me unhappiness (Your stopping cultural advancement!) as a regulator.

I like this idea.

 

[aatami]

A new patch coming again, that will improve things.

 

[Tatran]

A new patch coming again, that will maybe improve things.

Too enthousiastic I guess.

 

[GenjiKhan]

A new patch coming again, that will improve things.

It's coincidence that just before the june/july patch notes has been released,the amount of people who vote that civ 5 is in wrong direction is now more than those who think civ 5 is in right direction. (eidt) I didn't read Bibor's summary of this patch. it seems that Civ 5 has a chance to step to right direction this time

 

[wcbarney]

Right direction!

I started with Civilization (now known as Civ I) back when? (1991 I think). Enjoyed it immensely, became a whiz, lots of fun! Bought Civ II when it came out; enjoyed it immensely, became a whiz, lots of fun! Skipped Civ III, but bought Civ IV when it was released; totally sucked at this game, didn't become a whiz, uninstalled it & gave it to the Salvation Army. Bought Civ V when it came out; have enjoyed it immensely, have become a whiz (after my own fashion), lots of fun! --- and isn't that the object, after all?

 

[gaiko]

Unfortunately, the CivV groundwork is the Panzer General wargame-based 1UPT priority design decision. That key design decision flattened the pseudo-historical builder game experience that was the distinctive feature of the Civ series. If the Civ series wants to get back on track, the 1UPT design will have to be scrapped.

Here is a rhetorical question: Why would you prefer 1UPT over 2UPT?

While you mull over the question, consider these two aspects of the builder game:

- You know that in civV your capital city will always be all-important. (not to mention that you can't even move your capital around any more, another game variance lost). The capital city will be the only city that you'll only really have to care about all game. Contrast that with the ability to specialize multiple cities. Or the ability to develop radically different economies. It remains to be seen if the latest patch, with the buff to settling GPs and the HG, will change this without breaking the game with 1UPT spam.

- no foreign trade with the AI civs. Yet another economic/builder facet lost entirely. Simple as that.

Judging by the poll results I think it's safe to say that it's basically a step sideways. I think Civ 5 laid the groundwork for a great civ game in Civ 6. Civ 5 will teach a lot of lessons about things like hexes to the devs. The changes were perhaps the most radical of any of the civs. The leap from Civ 4 to Civ 5 was pretty substantial compared to Civ 3 to 4 or Civ 2 to 3 or 1 to 2. It naturally came with many bumps in the road. That is the learning process.

 

[gingerbill]

i agree with poster who said its a sideways step . It's a diffrent game and a very good one.

CIV5 couldnt have been CIV4 slightly changed or with more added on , i like how the tried to do something difffrent. I dont want to play CIV4 all over again with better graphics , otherwise i woulda just kept playing CIV4.

 

[Clement]

Almost a year later despite the patches i still don't feel like the leader of a great nation when i play Civ5, i still feel like a board-game player playing a badly designed board-game, all the gamey features like indestructible capital cities, no international trade routes and the mad rush to "win" the game instead of "guide a nation" just serve to cement that feeling.

The UI is still poorly presented and unintuitive, the diplomacy is disatisfying, simplistic and continues to exasperate me with it's brokeness, and the general feeling that the game lacks depth and things of interest to do other than just go to war is also still there.

Definitely the wrong direction as far as i am concerned, one of those few games that i regret purchasing, not because of the money necessarily but because of what a massive let-down it has been compared to it's predecessors.

-Poor AI diplomacy.
-Poor AI diplomacy. (That deserves to be said twice)

I agree one hundred percent, hands down the absolute worst part of the game for me, diplomacy is just shockingly dire, with every patch the changes to diplo are the smallest in number and the most superficial, my guess is it's because there just isn't much to be done without ripping it all apart and starting again.

 

[Becomedeath]

I don't think it's a step in any direction to be honest. Fair enough, I've played half of one game I'll admit, but it's like playing a totally new game.

The "old" format of Civilisation has held since the original Civ with very little in the way of change. That change was long overdue as the strategic concepts of the game were, even in Civ4, becoming highly dated. The stack and rule by sheer numbers form of combat was largely unchanged across all 4 of the franchises installments.

Civ 5 takes the concept and breathes new life into it. It's a change, so it's not always going to be easy to accept. But it's definately a change for the better IMO.

 

[kaltorak]

Depends.

If you take civ rev as starting point, yes its a step in the right direction.
If you take civ1-4 as starting point, no its a step in the wrong direction

 

[King Eli II]

I think it is step in the right direction, the reason being is that taking away stacking units at first was difficult to grasp but if you think about it... It adds a lot more strategy to the game which is what this game initially is. There are a lot of good features but i do think that, the developers need to adopt the if it isnt broke idealogy.

 

[Grievous]

lots of people saying its a 'step' in the right direction. i think its more of a stumble or maybe stagger in the right direction.

there are a million and one things lacking from game content and the game speed it way too fast, even on marathon. Ive played through 2 full games in the last 3 weeks.

Can't really download a mod as the internet where i am is very poor (it took 2 days to download from steam, which cost alot!)

In my opinion Civ 3 complete is the best. I had to much expectation for Civ 5 and its failed that expectation, so i voted wrong direction.

 

[Malachi256]

I like most of what they did with the game. Overall I think the streamlining is good, 1UPT and hexes are great, etc. The biggest problems I see are:

1. The AI simply can't handle 1UPT. I find myself losing interest almost instantly when the AI does boneheaded stuff. SoD was obviously a lot more simplistic, but in the same way it was more boring. Hopefully future patches will continue to improve the AI - it still definitely needs lots of work.

2. The turn-processing time in late game is simply unacceptable. The game is a bogged down mess.

 

[Generals3]

I'm not sure.
On one hand hexes, 1UPT and city states are steps in the right direction.
Small scale empires, global happiness and (to my opinion) too low production (vs science) are steps in the wrong direction.

To me the best fix is to add more options (in order to not anger those who actually likes said steps i consider bad). Split speed option into prod/science so we can play with it and add an option where you can reduce the unhappiness created by cities/pop (for larger empires).

And what i hope, is that they take a small step back from UPT to go to 1 army per tile. Stacks of doom were bleh, but 1 UPT is meh as well tbh. Better but still meh.

 

[Sonereal]

It's a step sideways.

It's not Civ4.5 like the fanboys wanted but isn't CivRev2 like others probably wanted (or thought).

 

[Zhahz]

It doesn't have to be either. Civ IV and Civ V are different games, V is not a step forward or back but sideways.

I'd tend to agree. I really like Civ 5 a lot - but I liked Civ IV a lot too. Civ 5 is just a variant on the civ theme.

I think Civ 5 was rushed/unfinished at release and it showed in lack of balance and pitiful combat AI. Balance and performance are better with this most recent patch and the AI is better, but still not quite where I think it could/should be.

One thing I think IS a big leap forward is 1UPT, just because I think stacks and stacks of doom are cheese. But, Civ 5 was released in such a poor state that it made the system look bad, and that's very unfortunate. Civ IV's combat AI was pretty lame too until BTS and even then it took user-created "better AI" to really make it good. But people will likely overlook that, slam 5 and 1UPT, and clamor for a return to stacks of cheese for Civ VI.

 

[code9]

For me, it took several steps in the right direction, and a few in the wrong direction, with backward ones being slightly more numerous.

Primarily, it's a simpler game, and there's less stuff to think about. I mean before, Health on it's own was a parallel minigame. Many such parallel concepts have been lost, and too much relies on gold and the flawed implementation of happiness.

 

[civ7]

Depends what part of Civ 5. I mean, hexes are about 5 steps in the right direction, I can't even play civ 4 anymore.

the problem wasn't squares; it was being able to move diagonally.