Is it really that bad?

The great thing about a simple game is that you can make it as complex as you like, by looking ahead further and planning.

Perhaps spending all your time thinking about decisions from 1 turn is not taxing to your brain. Then, I challenge you to perfectly plan your next 10 turns every turn.

There, complicated enough yet?

There's such a huge amount of things to think about that I can't keep track of it all. For example, "what is my enemy building" "when will i get attacked" "what tiles are barbarians more likely to be in" "what tiles to use in each city this turn" "what improvements maximize what I want" "will i need extra gold in 20 turns, so should I begin optimizing gold output" "will a granary or monument help me more, and why" "can i survive if I do this" "how can i kill all those units without losing any of mine" "how can I heal my army fastest" "how to move my workers most efficiently"

etc.

I can spend 5 minutes playing 1 turn in CiV, trying to plan and play perfectly. Every decision, no matter how miniscule, can be analyzed and judged.

 

I bought the game based on incorrect reviews, played a couple unfinished games, and have gone back to Civ4 ever since. I think it is a piece of garbage unless they do a major overhaul of the game, which seems very unlikely. Plus, I hate DLC. I still have to rate the game on Amazon

 

With well chosen 24 words I managed to create a page full of @#¤%storm. Good grief!

I never took offense over the opinions expressed. I believe I have a fairly good judgment over features in games, and whether something is of poor design or simply subjective. To me, according to my gaming experiences, religions in Civilization 4 polarized diplomacy. I wasn't fond of the concept, and even less enthusiastic about corporations as they adopted a somewhat similar mechanic. It didn't suit me, and having that mechanic removed from Civilization 5 was nothing but a joy to me.

Religions and corporations could be included into Civilization 5, sure. What I hope for is... somehow different. Religions are more like traits; they have their rules which can deny us certain aspects of life or such. Let's take a very exaggarated example about Catholic church, which is against abortion and in extreme cases, condoms. In Civilization game's simplified (and modern) world this would to my logic increase population growth but create a bit of unhappiness. I trust you can follow my line of thought from this point forward. Similar traits are present in every religion, both 'good' and 'bad'.

And to return to the lovely topic of ASE's quote, I think I paired it with KISS; Keep It Simple & Stupid. JohnnyW quite well did open up the issue there, seems like it was merely a matter of my interpretation of ASE's quote.

 

On my part, it simply gets exasperating to see people repeat the same defenses of the game - which increasing consist of endless attacks on Civ 4 - as if the underlying points haven't ever been addressed. I don't understand why putting down previous versions of the game acts to make the current one look any better. I stopped playing Civ 4 because it stopped holding my interest; the game definitely has flaws even though I got a lot of enjoyment out of it. (The biggest one, simply put, was that I started many more games than I finished; rather than spending many hours going to a pre-determined conclusion I'd just bail.

Civ 5 was, for me, unconditionally worse - it added a set of new problems and has numerous examples of simply bad game design. It's a wargame and not a very good one. The stuff I like in the series is shallow and doesn't work well, and it's even less of a simulation than prior versions were (especially the disastrous combat model). One thing that was discussed quite a bit early on, but which tends to get lost in the recitations of the litanies, is on how poorly this version treats immersion. When another civ tells you "you're trying to win the same way we are" it's just deadly to any suspension of disbelief, or any feeling that you're creating a civilization to stand the test of time. Religion, whatever its issues in detailed implementation (grossly exaggerated in my book by the critics, by the way; I liked it a lot), gave you a reason why Civ A hated you, or Civ B loved you. It created an internal logic to the game superstructure, just as people liking/hating your for your civics did. Similarly, having personalities that mattered in game play added to a more historical feel to the progress of the game.

 

I have a notepad that I use to keep my information in line. It lets me play the game, walk away, and come back with some kind of continuity. Here is an example of the one that I was keeping during my game where I considered France to be the most likely target for hostilities.

In the interest of keeping the file small, I got rid of some of the information and left only what was relevant to who I considered to be the biggest threat.

It's in ZIP format to allow me to upload it... inside the ZIP file is a PPTX (Power Point) file. It lets me avoid over-analyzing a turn for too long. Maybe you'll get some use out of it.

 

It's true it's still possible to micromanage. What are missing are the meaningful strategical choices.

 

I couldn't agree more.

And I would like to add something.
For sure I am in the camp of the ones who dislike Civ5.

Not only due to the combat system.
Not only due to the weak combat AI.
Not only due to the insane "diplomacy".
Not only due to city states serving as money burners; adding nothing to diplomacy but are needed for a "diplomatic victory".
Not only due to social policies - which make city states like me almost the the level of friendship, regardless if we've been at war one turn before (due to a SOCIAL POLICY of mine? C'mon!)
Not only due to a completely misconcepted UI (I really have to look at four different screens to have a complete overlook over the available diplomatic information?).
Not only due to incredible hardware requirements for almost nothing in return.
Not only due to almost any advertisement before release has been proven to be plainly wrong.

But due the combination of all of it.
And I have even not yet mentioned savegame organization, the need for Steam and other annoyances.

In total this game constitutes an insult to anybody who was paying good, hard earned money for it.
That's the reason I dislike it.

And even more I dislike if somebody is telling me: "That's just the way things are. Live with it. Why do you complain?"

 

Well this is my first post ever. I found out about civfanatics while trying to find ways to beat the computer on Deity on BTS a while ago and recently got curious on what were the opinions on CiV.
Right now i read most of these 12 pages, and it gets painfull at somepoints, I saw many accusations, going both ways, which seens completely empty to me, like: someone who like CiV is like a three year child playing with an ampty box or you dont like CiV because u wanted civ 4.5, or you r not open to change. I believe all these kind of comments dont really add anything at all.
That said...
I played Civ from the very first one and always enjoyed all of the series. I believe BTS is the best strategy game ever, even though I liked Civ IV Vanilla pretty much. Still i was eager for CiV. I played a few games on CiV, enjoyed it a bit, I like strategy games in general and I feel chalenged and try to learn the mechanics of the game and beat it, but quickly enough I was feeling bored. It felt to me as if the game was dumbed down, I know these has been repeated many times around here and just saying that dont actually explain much about these feeling so I will try to be more specific:

First: I didnt like the fact that it doesn matter if I make a farm or a pasture in a cow, for instance, and the farm i would make in a cow would give the same amount of extra food as it would if I would farm a rice, or wheat. And the same goes for other resources. And on topo of that the yields were considerably lowered.

Second: I thought that city states didnt add much to the game, I felt like there should be more options for dealing with then.

Third: It takes ages to build things, and it seens that these is related to the fact that the 1UPT asks for that so that you have smaller armies, and also that would explain why the yields had to be lowered.

Fourth: As far as it could be a good idea 1UPT seens the main problem with the game, it asks for a complet different mechanics, like the yields of the squares, time of production, etc and to me trying to move an army with seven units was a pain in the ass, even more if there were a neutral unit on the way.

Fifth: Another idea that seemed interesting was to have to pay for the roads, but again, these together with the 1UPT it made the moving of the troops a pain.

Sixth: I miss the slider, I believe it was a better way to control the beakers.

Seventh: I miss health/happy cap, I believe these asked for a better startegy to keep things going.

Eight: I miss religions/spionage. Religions added a lot to game strrategy, also spionage, which ididn use much was an interesting option, being able to see what science one is developing, destroy improvements on resources, and so on.

Ninth: The tech tree seens so much smaller.

Tenth: Diplomacy is really bad.

Therefore I was disapointed with CiV. Not because it made changes, but because I didnt like the changes it brought, but it can be fun, I just still prefer BTS a million times.

 

Update: I actually went back to verify and/or see my behavior when confronted with that sort of statement... and then I realized that I haven't. Ever. In fact, I don't see any references to me even being involved in a thread that mentions Civ4.5, or adjusting to modern times.

If the statement was more that I don't jump to the rescue of people who dislike 5 getting attacked by people who like 5, the answer is simple. One of three things is happening.

1. The person who dislikes 5 started the confrontation, and have already proven they're going to fight over the opinion.
2. The person who likes 5 started the confrontation, and it's up to the person who dislikes it to decide what to do.
3. I just didn't see it.

Generally, if it's not directed at me, I don't feel the need to jump in at someone else's defense. If the "douchebaggery meter" gets to high, the mods will get involved. I'm not a mod, and it's none of my business.

 

From production value, yea sure, Civ4 can have greater production, but those "greater cities" would be inheritly weaker then they can be in CiV due to other mechanics.

City greatness is more then just it's production values.

 

Cities in Civ4 are also stronger in gold, science and GP-production as unlike in V, there all +100% modifiers in all of them (Wall Street, Oxford, National Epic, OCC will let you stack 5 national wonders in a city). Not to mention that it's easier to grow a city in Civ4 than it's in Civ5 thanks to lesser food requirements, really efficient granary and food corps. Globe Theater and National Park remove health and happiness restrictions, while IIRC it's impossible to remove happiness restriction in Civ5. And there is no building maintenance.

I don't know where did you got the idea that individual cities in Civ5 are more powerful, but it's certainly not correct.

 

I think I just said that there is more to city "value" then the actual number of production in either food, hammers or gold. I suspect you might be one of those people (if you have seen Sid's video about the design of the game) that consider 20:10 vastly different from 2:1. Just because the values are higher doesn't make it better. Cost also has to be taken into effect. Not to mention the value the cost produces.

As far as growing a city. Civ4 has more options. Sure. Granary? So does 5. Civics that reduce the amount needed for city growth and the amount of food consumed are no worse then corporations.

Restrictions? The same restrictions are removed only by different means. Happiness restriction can be removed by both trading and simple stupid happy face buildings. And by of course the number of cities you build.

Oh yay, National Parks. Sure wish we had something to remove health restrictions in Civ5 :rollingthemeyesalldaylong:

Oh, and size does matter.

 

I have bought, installed but not played Civ V as it strikes me that some of the choices made by the designers are not to my taste, so I have been waiting for some mods (while enjoying other games like MoM, while EWoM hopefully evolves into a game that is fun). Unlike the OP, I am pretty sure that I played Civ on a 286, wasn't up to a 386 until Civ2. I have put literally thousands of gaming hours into the Civ series. Of all the games, I played Civ 4 by far the least. Graphics are not why I play a TBS. Don't think I ever got a game of Civ4 into the ADs; as hard as I tried, I just didn't enjoy the game. Did like FFH though (so there may be hope for EWoM). I do remember when Civ3 came out, this site was a fire storm of flaming; quite right too, as released the game was unplayable except on small maps. Anyone remember '1 shield suckland', a highly evocative - and accurate - description of any civ that had expanded beyond very tiny limits? But there was the editor and there were mods, great mods. Which I am still playing today (RFRE, Warhammer, DyP/RnR), long after Civ4 got tossed in the garbage bin of poor games. Please note, unlike many posters here whose views are absolute, I know that I measure game quality versus my own tastes. Civ3 was a relatively great game (patched, upgraded and modded, not as released); Civ 4 was a relatively horrible game, by far the worst of the series. Relative to my tastes, anyway. Someday I'll get around to playing Civ5 and make up my mind where Civ5 stands, at least relatively.

 

My goodness! I love micro-management and consider myself a pretty good player, but I've never been THAT serious. A nice presentation, though... Too bad Civ V is so easy that you can win without doing all that planning.

I find that hard to believe, since Civ 2 requires Windows 95. And even though it may be possible to run Windows 95 on a 386, it certainly isn't a good idea.

 

Civ 2 was released for Windows 3.1/3.11
Cover yourself in shame.

 

Now I'm really confused, because I had a 486 back then and it couldn't run Civ II. I couldn't even get Warcraft II to run. I was pretty sure both these game were 32 bit games, but obiously Civ II really was a 16 bit game.

 

GTFO. You've got to be trolling. Moderator Action: Such comments are not appropriate for this forum here. No one, and I mean NO ONE would be this PEDANTIC about ANYTHING that takes so little thought as a Civ game. NEVERMIND the fact that you've got little arrows of what the AI is gonna do.

 

ICS vs small city
Swordsmen vs Granary/Watermill
Great Library vs NC
Civil Service/Education vs Steel
HBR vs Iron Working


What exactly do you consider a meaningful strategic choice?

I can continue my list if you would like. There are so many decisions!

 

How civil.

This was a fairly unexpected response from someone who so proudly advertised their education with a literary degree. I guess I should remind you that, as I said before, I am actively seeking degrees at two universities: Communications Technologies and Intelligence Operations. This is basically my way of practicing both.

It's also interesting that you seem to think that the AI in Civ5 is far too simple for it to be a worthwhile game... yet at the same time, object to the idea that someone can recognize patterns in the way the AI behaves. That's beside the point, however.

I think it's only fair to inform you that the product I provided is my job. Since, last time we had a conversation, you basically accused me of being uneducated, unmotivated, and then told me that it's my fault you are presumptuous; and you cannot argue that you are presumptuous. After all of those assumptions, you are still making assumptions about me.
Moderator Action: Please don't troll other people.

As far as my pedanticity is concerned- I think certain persons would tend to disagree. Maybe you can't imagine doing it, but that doesn't make it any less realistic than me not being able to picture myself getting a "lit degree."

 

I do it for practice.

It requires Windows 3.1 . My first computer, ever, was like 20 bucks and had Win3.1 on it; and someone left Civ2 in the tray. Which... is actually how I got into the game.