Is CiV actually re-playable?

[TheMarshmallowBear]

But then, you can't really change a lot of your game, you will end up doing the same things over and over, just with diffrent diffiuclty levels and perhaps diffrent nations, but you will pretty much always go the same paths in the tech tree or choose the same policies so you can win better.

 

[Iberian]

So what if it's more difficult to win wome other way? you want the game to be easier? Anyway, I find science victory the easiest. It may be my passive playing style, but once I have supremacy building the spaceship parts takes less time than conquering the world.

It isn't so much one is easier it is that one is far superior and the others are either the same or you are playing on a level that is too easy for you. It is something that should be balanced.

I don't understand the devotion to saying Civ V is the best and nothing is wrong ever. There should be greater distinction in victory types as well as mimimizing the need for war in this game at high levels.

Aim for a science win instead then. I really don't understand your complaint.

The problem with science wins is that it is a victory you get when you already won. If I can build a spaceship I can build nuclear bombs and mech inf and win the game far earlier.

I think for the balance the space parts should come earlier and on a seperate track from military techs. This will allow you to choose a victory type. If a civ goes for science you can counter by going military and trying to invade before it is too late. The balance will be in the techs for space being x turns earlier. Make it a bit exciting. Culture could be similar and UN is essentially finance victory. I think there needs to be more tools to make culture and finance victories more feasible.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I've posted this point before on a different thread, but I think it bears repeating here.

The Space Race and Domination victory paths basically require the same things from you. They both require large amounts of (for ship parts / armies), and they both involve large amounts of . For the space race, this is obvious, but let's not forget the domination path usually requires you to grab a lot of cities (hence a lot more population and therefore, high amounts of ). Let's face it, not many of us are skipping over a bunch of cities to beeline the capital. And if you can invade the capital via the sea, you're not just leaving the rest of your enemy's cities to surround their capital and allow them the production to try to retake it.

Besides all of that, you don't want to try landing a huge army of cannon, infantry, and cavalry only to meet defeat at the hands of a few mech infantry, tanks, and rocket artillery. So, science is still important to domination wins.

Add all of this on to what Iberian has [correctly] pointed out in the above post, and you'll find that the Space Race is inefficient. This should definitely be corrected in the next patch or [more likely] in an expansion pack. The space race needs to be its own victory with its own path to victory without forcing the player to pass up on a more efficient victory method to reach it.

 

[King Patrick]

"I refuse to change the way I play the game" is not the same as "there aren't enough different ways to play."

 

[truenarnian]

Of course it's replayable. Otherwise no one here would even buy it. But if we are completely honest, its replay value lower than Civ4's or Civ3's.

Well, if by "we" you mean people on this forum, then I disagree. I have played all of the Civs except Civ3, and since the patch in December I have found Civ5 to be - by far - the most replayable of the series for my own tastes. I like the aesthetic of the hex grid, as well as hexes for warfare, I love 1UPT (I always though stacks of 40 units were ridiculous), I love the policy trees, I love so many of the civ abilities/units, I love the distance abilities of archers/artillery, I love the embarking ability (instead of transports), I love the road costs (so roads are a strategic decision)...I could keep going.

I play game after game after game of this. Sometimes I play the first 100 turns, then start a new game, sometimes I play for specific victories, sometimes I play civs "in character" (taking social policies and playing the game as the civ existed in real human history).

All that to say, that I find Civ5 to be even more replayable than the older games (speaking in terms of every game for its own time).

 

[wannabewarlord]

I agree a non-isolated start the chances of not being dowed on emp and above are negligible. I think some people are talking BS on this forum.

Well, I realize it is hard to believe if you yourself have not experienced it. But my China immortal game where I was sandwiched between Denmark and Ottomans (which I would consider a centered start), they didn't DOW me at all. The only DOW was Bismarck, who actually had to march through Denmark territory to even reach me (go figure) and one phony one from Japan across the continent (probably a buy-in).

So it is not impossible and I must say I often experience similar type of games. Sure, I also get games where I get many and early DOWS, but the distribution is maybe 60/40 (DOWs, no DOWs) not "negligible" as you mention.

If you take care who you befriend (I don't befriend anybody until mid-game when I see how the lines are drawn), do not expand into their territory (granted, you need some space for that) and keep your military more or less at par with theirs (although, Denmark had "an army that could wipe us off the planet") it is certainly possible. There is the leader flavor element to it, I agree. I cannot say that if I adhere to my rules I can constantly assure few or no DOWs; that is simply not how the game works. But I can say that with taking a bit care how you approach your neighbors, you can manage a lot.

 

[Rinnero]

Sure you can win another way. Just like you can run the 100m backwards.

That exactly describes current state of "replayability". You can, but than lose to someone who uses the only optimal strategy. That cannot be called replayability.

The only significant factor of replayability that exists in CiV is random map generation.

 

[Becomedeath]

I think the problem with Civ is, and always has been, that the more proficent you become at it, the easier it is to realise that you're going to win the game through whichever victory condition you're aiming at.

The more proficent you get the earlier in the game that tipping point comes. You being to realise earlier and earlier that you're hitting the unwritten stages for victory.

Once you've hit that point however, it can become extremly hard to finish the game. I've quit games after taking down 3 other Civs with another 3 left on the table. It's only a matter of time before they go down, the challenge has gone and the game, to some extent is over.

Part of this is due to the AI's inability to improvise, part of it is that there aren't enough short term objectives to keep you occupied along the way.

However, with things like CivFanatics GotM and Hall of Fame, the game gets a bit more longievity I feel (although I have never actually submitted to either).

The thing is, I don't see a way past that "tipping point" issue. Once you know you've won, the love goes out of the game. It's hard to push past it sometimes.

But that doesn't mean you can't replay the game, there is enough in there for you to set up your own victory conditions and ignoring those of the game itself. Or trying to beat your own acheivements, the quest for an earlier space race or 16th century modern armour always keeps me going.

And I'm sorry, but there is no feeling like seeing the map change to your colours entirely.

I don't care how many games you've played, watching that on a replay is always utter win!

 

[The Pilgrim]

Ok, now you're being sarcastic

Am I? Well... just a bit maybe.

I wrote "Seriously, I play immortal and I get games with no or very few DOWs".
I didn't say consistently, I just said it happens, and quite a few times as well. It can be the other way around, no doubt.

You also wrote "If you are getting "constant" DOWs on Warlord, then you must be doing something seriously wrong." Which is far from being true. And unless somebody figured out how to avoid most of the 'unnecessary' DoW's no need to blame the player. As you state yourself, it happens sometimes and doesn't happen other times. Consistency is a key word here. No consistency = no cracking the formula. Only good luck. I had several games with few DoWs as well without doing anything special or different. Means nothing. It's not completely random stuff - it's been coded somehow, after all. We just don't know how. And it looks like we won't before digging deep into the source code. Whatever the system is it's not obvious. So comments like "You think diplomacy sucks cause you don't play it right" make me frustrated, if we use gentle words. They're simply unfair. As for now nobody knows for sure what it the right way.

My culture game with France just after I won the China one had quite a few DOWs more. Isabella was a pain in the butt and Cathy joined the hen's club just to be bashed by Isabella afterwards. Talk about a b1tch-fight

Heh... After one nasty argument with my better half I've got really mad and played tiny map with female leaders only. Needless to say things got ugly. Really ugly.

I usually play with very few cities. I have yet to find a way to make a wide empire. I just don't get around to build settlers and if I do, happiness becomes an issue. Sure, puppeting when on a world domination spread is easy (does that count as wide?), but by myself I hardly build more than 3-4 cities. I won space with China with 3 tall cities, I don't need a wide empire, tbh. Although I would love to learn how to play wide for a change. If only just to change my playstyle a little (speaking of replayability )

Check this out. Might be helpful.

I usually play with two. Cannot remember the last time I hard built the settler. It's fine for science. There is no point for massive puppet empire when aiming for space. Puppets are good for bankroll (e.g. buying units), less for beakers. You have to annex them to fully benefit from extra pop. Puppets don't fill scientists slots neither build happiness buildings properly. Besides, heavy warring will cripple your opponents and you want them in decent condition and not hating you too much for RA's. Unfortunately on immortal AI's often broke even without war.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I agree a non-isolated start the chances of not being dowed on emp and above are negligible. I think some people are talking BS on this forum.

Not neccessary BS. We all judge based on our personal experience. It's all we've got. What amazes me the most it's how different the testimonies are. Which only proofs there is no solid tendency. Only chaos.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Play Hotseat

single player is great but there really is only one way to play Civilization if you want the full experience and that's hot-seat with a friend, forget simultaneous games online with no animations Hotseat is the ultimate way to play,,,

single player is for practice only, once you get past the beginner stage its time for a real game, Hotseat !!!

SP and MP are two different games. With slight correlation, yet incomparable.

I mentioned the scoring is high for obvious reasons but that wasn't my point. My point is that the dominate way to win is with domination. To win another victory condition is playing with a disadvantage. Every other victory condition is more difficult than a domination victory. This leaves the game with a lot less replayability.

Who cares about score? Why would it even matter?

I honestly don't get the score system. It's purposeless except for time victory and who plays for time victory? Civ3/Civ4 milking age is over, thank god. And as long as final result carries binary value (win/loss) it's plain meaningless. Solution to your problem is relatively easy. Ignore the score and enjoy different VC's.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Well, if by "we" you mean people on this forum, then I disagree. I have played all of the Civs except Civ3, and since the patch in December I have found Civ5 to be - by far - the most replayable of the series for my own tastes. I like the aesthetic of the hex grid, as well as hexes for warfare, I love 1UPT (I always though stacks of 40 units were ridiculous), I love the policy trees, I love so many of the civ abilities/units, I love the distance abilities of archers/artillery, I love the embarking ability (instead of transports), I love the road costs (so roads are a strategic decision)...I could keep going.

I play game after game after game of this. Sometimes I play the first 100 turns, then start a new game, sometimes I play for specific victories, sometimes I play civs "in character" (taking social policies and playing the game as the civ existed in real human history).

All that to say, that I find Civ5 to be even more replayable than the older games (speaking in terms of every game for its own time).

Of course it's a matter of personal taste. I should have added 'IMO'. Never meant everybody here share the same opinion.

So... IMO, Civ3 is by far the most replayable of the series. But even Civ4 has more replay value than Civ5. IMO, again.
I find culture games boring. Maybe I should try for it on Deity with aggressive opponents. It'll spice things up. But I dunno... It's not exiting in any way. I have to say I didn't like culture in previous games too. Just not my cup of tea. But at least with other VC's you had to sweat. First of all you needed to build good base for your empire. Then you could decide upon which VC you want to pursue. You missed with one you still could change your plans and go for another. In Civ5 all science/diplomacy games are the same. It's all about money. RA's for science, buying CS's for diplo. Diplomacy is way too easy. It can be challenging only if you play vs. Genghis and all your votes fell down under his sword. You'll have to liberate them first to win. Didn't happen to me yet.

Even domination is not that exciting. The same sequence of actions most of the time. Liberty settler for settling strategic resource, selling luxes for upgrades, beelining Machinery/IW/Chivalry and start pushing. Subdue a neighbor or two, wait for artillery and wipe out the rest. Artillery is the turning point in every single domination game unless you play with Mongols.

But don't you worry about me. I'll find the way to entertain myself. I actually like the game despite all of this. It's much better than it was a year ago. There is MP, mods and many other stuff that can keep me busy. Though SP vanilla... yeah, I find it a little repetitive.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't understand the devotion to saying Civ V is the best and nothing is wrong ever.

Who says that? If anything, there are people who say "Civ 5 is the worst and everything is wrong" and those defending it saying "I like this game, it's fun to play, I think it's a good entry in the Civ series."

I agree there are problems with conquest being the easiest victory condition. I just think that has, at most, a negligible effect on replay value. Take the road less traveled by, it will make all the difference. Sure, if you take the path of least resistance, you'll play the same way. If you play in Chieftain, the game will be easier as well. Doesn't mean you won't have more fun by mixing things up and it doesn't mean you can't mix things up.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I think that most players that have come from years of playing Civ4 will find Civ5 massively replayable at first, but after a few years, we may not think so. Firaxis certainly has their work cut out for them with regards to expansion packs. I think we will get a more accurate picture of Civ5's longevity with a wide fan base once the expansion packs come out.

Civ4 vanilla was great, but I feel like it wasn't until Warlords came out that the forums reached a fevered pitch. So perhaps with the expansion pack that will inevitably come out for Civ5, we will see massive workovers (hopefully a lot of diplomacy work) that will maximize the replayability. I still have a lot of fun with this game... but then again, I'm still working on learning the advanced mechanics (just about to start my first King game).

 

[Iberian]

I agree there are problems with conquest being the easiest victory condition. I just think that has, at most, a negligible effect on replay value. Take the road less traveled by, it will make all the difference. Sure, if you take the path of least resistance, you'll play the same way. If you play in Chieftain, the game will be easier as well. Doesn't mean you won't have more fun by mixing things up and it doesn't mean you can't mix things up.

In my post I mention that is what I do...

How do you not see it effecting replay value? Lets pretend for a moment that the other victory conditions are equally as viable. Now when a game starts you know that there are several paths to victory that are each distinct from each other.

As a test I played the same game twice. Once as a domination once as a science. By turn 100 my domination game had more science, culture while the science game had more coin, happiness. Soon domination overtakes every demographic and can now choose how to end the game.

Now obviously one game is conclusive but we all have played many games and we all know the above is the rule rather than the exception. Want to win a science game? Build a military. Want to win a UN game? Build a military? Want to win culture? Build a military.

That hurts replayability. The fact that your science doesn't suffer or your production possibilities doesn't suffer during war hurts the balance of this game. The fact that both actually increase greatly when you go to war really hurts the balance. Maybe puppets have to be annexed in 30 turns or they revert back to their parent nation.

I don't know what the best answer is but I do know there is a lot of potential in balancing the domination aspect of this game.

 

[Becomedeath]

I think the question here should be, what level of replayability is acceptable.

I play a couple of games a week at various levels with various goals in mind. I have a couple of games (including my now epic huge map 2550AD and counting game!) which I go back to every so often to get my "just one more turn" fix or if I just don't feel like playing a whole game from scratch. So I get loads of replay value.

Now the level of diversity I require for that is never going to match the level that someone playing for several hours every day is going to expect. And nor should it, but I'm neither casual or hardcore in terms of Civ 5, I love the game and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it, but from some of the comments in this thread, there are issues that I wouldn't even expect the game to resolve being brought up, so what exactly is enough?

Where do you draw the line? When does what's being called "replay value" become "just go and find your front door and do something else"!?

Everyone has a different interpretation of how much they want to replay a game and what they expect from that replay experience. You're never going to get the same experience again as you did from your first games, but is it reasonable to keep expecting a similar new experience from replaying a game you've already played in all it's available combinations?

 

[bitula]

I think the question here should be, what level of replayability is acceptable.

I play a couple of games a week at various levels with various goals in mind. I have a couple of games (including my now epic huge map 2550AD and counting game!) which I go back to every so often to get my "just one more turn" fix or if I just don't feel like playing a whole game from scratch. So I get loads of replay value.

Now the level of diversity I require for that is never going to match the level that someone playing for several hours every day is going to expect. And nor should it, but I'm neither casual or hardcore in terms of Civ 5, I love the game and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it, but from some of the comments in this thread, there are issues that I wouldn't even expect the game to resolve being brought up, so what exactly is enough?

Where do you draw the line? When does what's being called "replay value" become "just go and find your front door and do something else"!?

Everyone has a different interpretation of how much they want to replay a game and what they expect from that replay experience. You're never going to get the same experience again as you did from your first games, but is it reasonable to keep expecting a similar new experience from replaying a game you've already played in all it's available combinations?

To be sincere the only thing stopped me from playing Civ4 (mods) on a given day is physical exhaustion - I remember, if I started in the morning I could play 16 hours non-stop (yes - I have lots of time...). And the experience of the first game was not really better than any subsequent game. All my games ended up very different. As soon as I finished a game I started a new one. If this is not possible with Civ5, then why play it at all? I mean seriously, I never understood this casual fun philosophy - if I know it will just last for a time (actualy the first half or 1 hour of Civ5 used to be fun), why would I play it at all, when I have a game like Civ4, Homm5 etc, which are guaranteed to be more addictive.

 

[Ginman]

Now obviously one game is conclusive but we all have played many games and we all know the above is the rule rather than the exception. Want to win a science game? Build a military. Want to win a UN game? Build a military? Want to win culture? Build a military.

That´s a wrong point of view. Build military and conquer more than the half of the wold ist always a military victory although the game says that you have won a science-, UN- or culture-victory. When i play Civ4 and conquer all but one city and then go for a culture victory should i call it a culture victory, too?



edit:

I mean seriously, I never understood this casual fun philosophy - if I know it will just last for a time (actualy the first half or 1 hour of Civ5 used to be fun), why would I play it at all, when I have a game like Civ4, Homm5 etc, which are guaranteed to be more addictive.

An other question:
When you have games like Civ4, Homm5 etc, which have such a great replay-value and you can not get tired of them, why would you post in every single Civ5-Thread how bad Civ5 is?

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Spam deleted. Back to topic.