Is CiV up to snuff yet?

[nokmirt]

I am a grizzled civ vet going back to civ3.. I withheld from getting Civ5 because of the negative reviews (mainly the poor AI performance) on this forum despite the glowing computer game industry reviews. I was wondering if any of those who were disappointed with the initial incarnations of CiV now feel after patches and expansions that it has once again become a game worth throwing one's job and life away to play again.

Sorry if this is addressed in another thread but I searched and couldn't find anything of that sort

CiV will be when they get the rest of the DLCs and the 2nd expansion out. In the meantime it needs more work. Although it has vastly improved over time. When all is said and done, it will be one of the best in the series. I just hope the devs don't give up on her.

I have a gut feeling they are not going to.

 

[Donaskme]

The OP says his biggest concern is a decent AI, and nobody gives an honest comment on this matter?

I imagine that many folks politely ignore such questions, since AI in any game is quite poor compared to a human being, in every case. They then get on to the heart of the matter, which is whether the game is fun and compelling.

My favorite franchise of all time is the "Hitman" series, and the latest game in the series released on Tuesday before Thanksgiving, where I'm looking at a four day weekend. I pre-ordered it a month ago. I spent about one hour on it, it's fabulous, then I quit and rolled a Standard Pangaea on King with the Inca because I've fallen in love with them. For the next four days...

That's how good Civ 5 is, to me. I recommend it.

 

[smallfish]

It definitely still has its flaws, but its also definitely the best thing ever since sliced bread.

 

[sennomulo]

After buying Civ V, I didn't play it very long (it just wasn't as enjoyable as Civ IV for me), but when I saw Gods & Kings in the store, I decided to buy it, and I feel it's definitely made the game a lot better and I've really been getting back into Civ V because of it. The AI isn't perfect, but it's certainly the best of all the Civ games I've ever played. So, to answer your question, yes, it is up to snuff in my opinion.

 

[naib]

Just recently dusted it off because of the G&K Steam sale. I think I'd logged maybe 20 hours total since Civ V came out. So far I'm enjoying it much more but I can't put a finger on why.

I can't speak to the AI yet, but it sure runs better than it did last I gave it a spin.

 

[vonSharma]

Yeah, thanks for addressing my question directly guys. I honestly would pay $500 for what would essentially be Civ3 but if they had just spent the last 10 years making the AI better (and added religion). Sounds like it is a work in progress still but it might be time to jump on board, albeit not with realistic expectations.

 

[masterofroflnes]

civ 5 has its problems however.Like not being able to trade maps or an effective and awesome diplomacy system.But regardless the game is amazing and future expansions on the scale of gods and kings could very well make it a competitor to civ 4 and 3 (if they can make the ai scary in the next patch or expansion pack)

 

[OmniPotent42]

It's definitely as good now as the first IV was.

 

[mlund]

The game works very well now mechanically. An AI that can handle 1-unit-per-tile is just much harder to write than Stacks of Doom, so it'll still handle awkwardly at times. Of course, you can get around all of that by playing Multiplayer against real humans.

The AI's clumsiness in combat vs. Stacks-of-Doom-AI, however, is sometimes compensated for by how broadly aggressive the AI can be as a competitor. The AI is adequately aware that it is trying to win, not just fart around in a sandbox as an oblivious NPC. After the most recent expansion and patch the AI has the tools it needs to deliver threats - it buys units more aggressively, it expands more aggressively, it bribes other AI to gang-pile you. It's threat-detection still needs some work, but it even manages balanced combined-arms offensives now.

- Marty Lund

 

[civvver]

I think the reason people didn't like civ3 was the rampant corruption. In civ2 it was manageable via courthouses and eventually you'd switch to a civic with zero corruption. In civ3 it was godawful and it reduced your production as well so eventually you'd be capturing cities that couldn't contribute to your empire whatsoever.

I think people loved civ4 because it completely removed corruption and balanced things on an economic expansion level. It's really a clever way to do things, that having more cities costs more maintenance and can bankrupt you, yet adding cities always increases your production. Thus if you balance it right you do well and there's ways to convert production to gold to cover the maintenance. Someone explained it well that nothing is civ4 was really a penalty so much as opportunity cost.

When civ5 came out, it wasn't so much is was a bad game as it had drastic design differences to civ4. Again overexpansion did something similar to corruption with global happiness reducing your productivity. You now felt penalized for building and capturing cities. It's really just changing your mindset that civ5 is not a colonize the entire global with size 40 cities like civ4 was. Once you get past that civ5 becomes pretty enjoyable.

Although I do still notice a lack of replayability in my games simply because the tech tree is extremely straightforward and there's no trading techs to try slingshots etc.

 

[Lucid_Interval]

Like Civ 5 or hate it, but that the AI is a total catastrophe isn't opinion, it's fact. It's so bad that it is basically impossible to lose, regardless of difficulty.

This made me chuckle.

 

[dashwinner]

The OP says his biggest concern is a decent AI, and nobody gives an honest comment on this matter? This is downright misleading. Like Civ 5 or hate it, but that the AI is a total catastrophe isn't opinion, it's fact. It's so bad that it is basically impossible to lose, regardless of difficulty. Enemy units dance around your cities till they get shot to pieces, settlers, workers and great generals get sent to the front line, naval combat is non-existant; there is no resistance from the combat AI on any meaningful level. That's not even going into how the AI can't win strategically either, because it hoards its gold instead of going for the so-called diplomacy win, doesn't build spaceship parts when it could and a domination victory is obviously out of the question.

If you like the game, fine and good. But at least be honest enough to mention the problems it has, especially to someone looking for advice who asks specifically about these problems and how they matter to him.

Have you played since the new patch??

they fix a lot of the issues you mentioned

 

[Grotius]

For that matter, Funky, have you tried winning a Cultural game on Deity or Immortal without being a warmonger? Or, for that matter, any peaceful victory on Deity? It can be done, but it most assuredly is not "impossible to lose" such a game. For that matter, even warmongers have their hands full on Deity: only 1% of Steam users report having the Achievement for beating Deity. (Yes, those stats aren't entirely reliable, but I don't think they're wildly off the mark either.)

To the OP: I've played hex-based wargames all my life, and many of the major computer hex-based wargames. Not a one has a great AI, but they can still provide a compelling experience. The same is true with Civ V. Moreover, G&K and the fall patch seem to have improved the AI somewhat. It now knows to withdraw when it's taking losses. It is better about attacking in force. It uses combined arms better. If I build lots of horses, I find myself facing lots of pikes. Sure, it still does stupid things: lurking at a citadel, or leaving vulnerable units in a vulnerable spot. But it's gotten a lot better. I'd say it's about average for wargame AI now.

But my broader point is: Civ V isn't just a wargame. That's what makes it great.

 

[Fluffball]

From someone who loved civ 3(like the OP does) and would often pine for it/go back and play it while owning civ 4 i would say that civ 5 is a huge step forward, especially in it's current state.
It certainly isn't perfect but I certainly couldn't go back the the old games. The hex and 1 unit per tile system is just what i have always hoped would come to the series and i really love additions like the social policies.

There are things that could be improved and missing, mostly simple stuff like not being able to name your units at will (can only be done on earning a promotion).
The biggest letdown is certainly the diplomatic AI still which often seems like it wants to beat you at all costs, even to the detriment of itself.i.e. it will shy away from helping you even if it helps itself in doing so (outside of the hard coded cases where it would seem it will always help you, always buying luxuries it doesn't have, accepting RA's etc, just at worse prices the more it hates you.

Having said that though it has improved greatly with it seeming less likely the AI's will always end up hating you in the end...I have actually started to see games where some AI's legitimately like me at the end still so you can make some kind of meaningful friendships at least.

 

[romcom2000]

It's an amazing game and has evolved considerably since initial release. Now is a good time to get in. I played single for months then got into multiplayer, which is outrageously fun and resolves the AI issues. Yeah singleplayer AI isn't great, but it's not terrible either. Immortal and Deity are still a challenge for all but the most seasoned players.

A multiplayer pitboss will be out sometime soon, which will make multiplayer way better ... sometime in the next six months I hope!

Also, if you're buying on a Mac, buy the Steam version! Can't play multiplayer without it. Buying on Steam also entitles you to a PC version of the game should you wish to switch later.

Oh but unfortunately the Mac version hasn't been updated yet (Mac patches trail PC patches by a couple months it seems), so you won't be able to play multiplayer. But you won't want to anyway for the few months it takes to master single.

 

[Matthew.]

IMO, the move towards 1UPT was needed to progress, and while there has been issues with it, I don't think staying with unit stacks, "just 'cause", is best in the long-term. My hope is that if they get around to making a Civ6, they will have greatly improved on the 1UPT system with overall optimization and larger maps.

As for Civ5, I think the AI does a decent job at domination on Pangaea, and science on most maps. There is huge room for improvement in cultural victories and cross continent domination though. Even on higher difficulties, civs going for CV's will end up with 3, maybe 4 completed polices max. I've never had an AI get a CV.

Anywho, the game has improved significantly since vanilla release. Despite its flaws, it occupies more of my time than most strategy games.

 

[cman2010]

take it from someone that hated civ 5 when it was first released, the game is well worth the cost now with g&k expansion and dlc. The game will never be as good as civ 4 but it is a good and fun game now in its own right.

 

[bison21]

I started off with Civ5 and upon everyone glorifying IV I gave that a go and to this day I cannot comprehend how SoD is not ruining the entire game for these people.

Anyway, I think what helps you is also looking closer at what people say that still whine about 5. Loads of the arguments evolve around
1. it doesn't have a 'soul', i.e. cinematics missing and music in the menu too dull
2. everything is dumbed down (vassal states, sliders etc), that social policies are ridiculous compared to civics
3. That the AI is too aggressive - I saw people arguing that the peace treaty - for all your goods was seen as evidence that the AI is broken
4. Only one leader per civ
5. (my favourite) 1UPT is dumbing down warfare due to "carpet of doom" and that it makes tactics impossible

Have a look at the old civ5 bashing threads, read carefully and you will find that 90% of replies are "It's not Civ4, how dare they". Loads of the arguments are based on emotional attachments to the game and the lack of willingness to open up to a different type of playing. That is especially in regards to the AI.

I think it's perfectly normal and we're all subject to this. I remember when Anno 1701 came out- shocked at the rehaul of graphics and UI I decided not to play it, and a year later I gave it another shot and wohey, it is great.

 

[jjkrause84]

I will never be a fan of Civ 5...I think the tone is all off, and that several CORE mechanics were very unwisely chosen. It is fun, but I will never look back once Civ 6 coems out (assuming 6 isn't even worse).

I still play lots of Civ 4.

 

[ork75]

I started off with Civ5 and upon everyone glorifying IV I gave that a go and to this day I cannot comprehend how SoD is not ruining the entire game for these people.

Anyway, I think what helps you is also looking closer at what people say that still whine about 5. Loads of the arguments evolve around
1. it doesn't have a 'soul', i.e. cinematics missing and music in the menu too dull
2. everything is dumbed down (vassal states, sliders etc), that social policies are ridiculous compared to civics
3. That the AI is too aggressive - I saw people arguing that the peace treaty - for all your goods was seen as evidence that the AI is broken
4. Only one leader per civ
5. (my favourite) 1UPT is dumbing down warfare due to "carpet of doom" and that it makes tactics impossible

Have a look at the old civ5 bashing threads, read carefully and you will find that 90% of replies are "It's not Civ4, how dare they". Loads of the arguments are based on emotional attachments to the game and the lack of willingness to open up to a different type of playing. That is especially in regards to the AI.

Exactly. In regards to the "carpet of doom", I have only seen it on deity level let's plays very late game. Sometimes it will pop up in certain areas, but in my opinion, since these areas tend to be concentrated choke points, it adds to the game by encouraging good warfighting on both the strategic and operational levels.

I like Civ 4 BtS, but after going back to it I find that it is more or less TOO complicated, and a successful playthrough requires top-level knowledge of the tech tree, units, and other small points.
CiV G&K, on the other hand, is nicely streamlined and is both addictive and entertaining. What I always say to Civ vets who want to try it is "don't expect anything. Don't compare to any previous Civ. Play CiV as itself."

Also, I think espionage and religion have been vastly improved.

I recommend it, but don't bring any expectations and don't try to compare it, because it is a game of a different breed.