is it just me or does a game of Civ 5 take a REALLY long time?

[Gurd]

Getting used to new mechanics and having to read everything through multiple times over slows me down quite a bit. Add to that the animations always being on and war requiring a lot more attention, and a game of Civ5 does take quite a bit longer than a round of Civ4 for me. Not to the point that it gets annoying, but still longer.

 

[gunter]

I like the pace.

Also don't quite understand what people find wrong with construction pace. You need less units in Civ5 than Civ4 and you don't need all buildings in all your cities either. Makes you think more about what to build.

How do you rate the fact that you can achieve a tech step average within 5/6 turns and at the same time your unit average production takes 20 turns ?

The result is that you have f.i. 8 techs and 2 ancient units and 1 ancient building. It is like to finish the production of a spearman when you discover gunpowder. You have to skip 2 or 3 generations of soldier just because the tech is out of synch against the production speed.

Does it make sense ? Nope to me

 

[Wolfwood]

Indeed, I was playing France and looking forward to the Musketeer unit. As it happened, when it was supposed to become available, 4 of my research agreements were also finished on the same turn and I jumped straight over the musketeers to the next unit type...

 

[DrwHem]

Put your autosave amount down to 1-3. Then it will run a bit better.

the default autosave is every 10 turns already.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Agree with the overall slower pace. Used to play Epic on Civ4 (sweet spot between the fast action of normal and the use you get out of units on Marathon) - standard in Civ5 hits the same sweet spot.

I consider this to be a good thing.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Rince]

How do you rate the fact that you can achieve a tech step average within 5/6 turns and at the same time your unit average production takes 20 turns ?

I have only played through one game so far and this frankly was not a problem for me. First of all, buildings don't count since the do not get obsolete. There's nothing wrong about building a market, a bank or a harbor in the modern age, is there?

As for units, again, I did not have the impression that production was slow. It does take 20 turns to produce a unit yes. But that unit is much more meaningful than in Civ4 because you need less of them. And not every tech step is obsoleting your unit unless you're beelining. And you can upgrade your unit later so no production is lost.

Sorry but for me you sound like someone who is first convinced of something and then tries to argue in that direction. You'll probably say the same about me though

 

[USAFireFly]

That's been a strength and a weakness of Civ all along. Now it takes so much 'time' that it's a waste of 'time'. Seriously, Civ V is terrible.

 

[eoc]

no, I don't think so. maybe I played only standard and small map. 300 turns past so fast ^_^

 

[war_mchine]

Much longer than Civ 4 so far IMO, but I could attribute some of that to learning the new mechanics. I am playing prince, normal speed, large map, not sure how many hours I've played, but I haven't nearly reached the end of my first game after a few sessions.

 

[atog]

I attempted to do a united nation victory. But after some time, I lost interest. I m not the challenge seeking kinda guy. So I play on low difficulty. While older civs keeps me interested (you can say i play it as a Sim game), this one does not. So.............


I really want to look at the ending. So i go on a game with standard setting, except with pangaea and egypt. Game warped in 100 turns or so with Chariot archers. I think there were only 4 of them lol. 2 great general. and 1 warrior to conquer city.