"More patches are on their way"

[aziantuntija]

When I can build 1 unit per 2-3 techs, there is most definitely a problem with research speeds VS unit production.

I really dont have that long building times compared to research times in my marathon games, at least not with units.

 

[Celevin]

Are you talking about the early, mid, or late game?

Early game is painful

 

[SuperJay]

Oh ok. Well if you feel like that you cant act constructively, then maybe you shouldnt try to engage in discussion with me.

I didn't. I don't even recall talking to you in the first place. You started badgering me about why I don't like Civ 5, demanded I list my reasons, and then started complaining about me to other Civ fans when I didn't drop everything and answer you immediately.

 

[aziantuntija]

Are you talking about the early, mid, or late game?

Early game is painful

Well i dont actually build units too early on in the game.. Well i do build kind of big army early on if im playing Romans (because they have Legion and Ballista) but i have not enountered this problem you describe. I can have lots of fun with my Legions and Ballistas before they become outdated.

I didn't. I don't even recall talking to you in the first place. You started badgering me about why I don't like Civ 5, demanded I list my reasons, and then started complaining about me to other Civ fans when I didn't drop everything and answer you immediately.

What have you eaten? When have i complained about you to the others? I really dont understand your attitude here.

I asked why dont you like civ5, you didnt answer and later i quoted my list in my other comment and said: ''This is what i asked from SuperJay but he doesnt seem to be willing to answer me''

Thats hardly an excuse to throw something like this:

Plus, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to try and engage you in any kind of constructive discussion.

I quoted you and asked you a question and you did not answer, so whats so horrible about me saying this when i posted this same list much later on:

This is what i asked from SuperJay but he doesnt seem to be willing to answer me:

 

[City Raider]

Well i dont actually build units too early on in the game.. Well i do build kind of big army early on if im playing Romans (because they have Legion and Ballista) but i have not enountered this problem you describe. I can have lots of fun with my Legions and Ballistas before they become outdated.

It's not one particular unit. Infact all early units have incredibly long life spans b/c of seige and bombardment. But this isn't a problem new to Civ 5. There has pretty much always been units in the mid game that obselete too soon in civ. Ancient units typivcally have long life spans (at least in civ 4 and 5 they do) due to seige.

Its not the legions/swords ballistas/cats that have the issue, its the crossbow/muskets/knights/trebs (mid game) type units that can have short to no life spans. As long as you can have a few long swords and a couple seige, you'll be fine and need no other units. I can't think of the last game where I built a musket. Why? B/c, one swords can be upgraded to longswords and are stronger and two, rifles are right around the corner.
Depending on your upgrades, rifle/infantry can have no life span. My jumps are usually either:
swords -> rifles -> mech inf or
longswords -> inf -> mech inf

either way you are skipping lots of units. I'd just prefer a slower progression and it have every unit actually matter or have a purpose in the game. Civ 4 had this issue as well where you can go from Axe/Swords right to rifles even on epic.

I used to play Civ 4 on Epic and could finish relatively peaceful games in 5-6 hours, war games in 8-9. But in Civ 5, I'm finding my regular games on standard approaching the 9-10 hours of game time level. Played one epic game, took waaaay too long and didn't even finish, so I can't imagine a marathon. I like to try and bang out a game in a week playing an hour or two a night. If it drags on too long, I lose interest and always want to start a new game and try something new.

In terms of overall pacing I find it annoying that (on emperor) its pretty consistant that Infantry come on line in like the 1700s. And that is by the AI and city states. I'm usually 1-2 techs behind depending on game. This isn't even with RA abuse or anything. Infact I don't sign RA, the AI does, but still when you aren't even trying to zip through the tech tree and you can get mech inf in the 1800's and build Apollo and stuff, then somthing needs to be done.

I just like my game to have an epic feel and right now the ages just move too quick. I don't see how on epic or marathon you still aren't seeing Mech inf in the 1800's or so, so I don't think the game speed is the issue. I just don't think there is enough to do in each age except advance to the next age.

 

[aziantuntija]

Its not the legions/swords ballistas/cats that have the issue, its the crossbow/muskets/knights/trebs (mid game) type units that can have short to no life spans. As long as you can have a few long swords and a couple seige, you'll be fine and need no other units. I can't think of the last game where I built a musket. Why? B/c, one swords can be upgraded to longswords and are stronger and two, rifles are right around the corner.
Depending on your upgrades, rifle/infantry can have no life span. My jumps are usually either:
swords -> rifles -> mech inf or
longswords -> inf -> mech inf

either way you are skipping lots of units. I'd just prefer a slower progression and it have every unit actually matter or have a purpose in the game. Civ 4 had this issue as well where you can go from Axe/Swords right to rifles even on epic.

You are absolutely right about this. I first somehow didnt connect this very familar civ problem to Celevins this post: ''When I can build 1 unit per 2-3 techs, there is most definitely a problem with research speeds VS unit production.'' I just didnt understand it the way it was propably meant to be. Stupid me

I just like my game to have an epic feel and right now the ages just move too quick. I don't see how on epic or marathon you still aren't seeing Mech inf in the 1800's or so, so I don't think the game speed is the issue. I just don't think there is enough to do in each age except advance to the next age.

If i remember correctly, i play on King level howewer i dont see any Mech Infs in 1800's, but if i would see, that would be a problem for me also so i understand what you are saying. And yes i agree with you that we should have more time in each era. Medivel, reneissance and industrial are gone too quickly.

 

[Duuk]

Kapow! This is great. A discussion where both parties attempt to win by actually throwing down verifiable facts. That's rare round these parts. I approve

(The above was a response when I admitted I could not prove Civ5 had moved 1 million units.)

I love the fact that people are cheering me for admitting that I gave Civ5 too much credit...

 

[ash88]

I posted in that thread. I basically said, "people are still playing this game?" My post was silently deleted.

Can't blame them... but still... I wonder what else has been censored. If they are censoring negative press, and we see as much as we are... I wonder how much there really is.

 

[Horizons]

Well, the last patch didn't give any improvements as far as I'm concerned. More transparent diplomacy (lol) doesn't equate to better diplomacy, and 'better AI' doesn't mean nerfing all the social policies and giving the AI insane bonuses. All of these things just equate to a worse, less-fun uphill slog. REAL improvements to the game we will have to PAY FOR in the form of expansions or, most likely, piecemeal (and very expensive) DLCs.

 

[aziantuntija]

Well, the last patch didn't give any improvements as far as I'm concerned.

I think many people will disagree with you on this one.

More transparent diplomacy (lol) doesn't equate to better diplomacy,

Well imo, in this case it did.

..and 'better AI' doesn't mean nerfing all the social policies and giving the AI insane bonuses.

IMO, the AI is more competitive post patch so id say that it really was a good improvement.

REAL improvements to the game we will have to PAY FOR in the form of expansions or, most likely, piecemeal (and very expensive) DLCs.

Im not trying to make fun of you and im sorry if it looks like it. But to me it looks like you honestly think that they are going to -most likely- sell ''improved AI'' or ''improved diplomacy'' or some other big game experience changing system as DLC.
I belive that DLC is meant for something like extra civs, extra units.. etc. NOT for some game changing improvements to the AI or improvement to some other basic concept of the game like diplomacy.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

When I can build 1 unit per 2-3 techs, there is most definitely a problem with research speeds VS unit production.

Just curious--are you playing "get Maritimes, trading post everything"? Or you put in a mine or two? I know slow builds, but not THAT slow . . .

 

[JLoZeppeli]

SidMeierGroupy, i dont understand what are you trying to accomplish. I just asked what things you dont like about civ5.

1) AI can't use the 1UPT, stack fo doom was more simple to handle, but still awful.

2) 1UPT is boring when it comes to moving units (blocking path by allies etc.), it is not a scenario tactical wargame, were the only thing to do is "moving units".

3) Diplomacy is a total mess, useless for the most.

4) SPs are too linear, they are absoutely awful and any route is without drawback of sort, it's more like a build from a mmorpg.

5) Tech tree is not interwined enough, so you can unlock SP very early as well some troops only abusing the tree.

6) City states are to shallow and plane, give them gold, get reward...

7) terrain resources are totally useless and too similar, only the troop\building resource limit is quite good.

I can go on, do you want more?

PS I have not spoken of Civ IV, i pointed out the structural problems of Civ V....

 

[aziantuntija]

@JLoZeppeli Nice list, I really don’t agree with all that but I answer some of those that I do agree at least to a certain point.

1) I agree the AI could do better with 1upt + ranged attack and I also agree that the AI was much better with just pumping hundreds and hundreds of units and just stacking them.

2) Normally this doesn’t bother me, although sometimes (in late game) it does.

3) I agree that the diplomacy could be better but after the latest patch I wouldn’t call it a ''total mess''.

5) I agree.

6) Well yes they might be deeper I give you that, but I wouldnt be too surprised or worried about this because its just a vanilla version.

I can go on, do you want more?

Don’t be ashamed, just keep em coming if you feel like it. I belive I wont be here all night but anyway..

Happy New Year to everyone!

 

[JLoZeppeli]

And if you agree on five out of seven, can you call this game worth of playing?

Besides, the Ai problems affecting movements is still awfull, AI can't move on the map properly the troops, yes, it's better now at defence, but defensive warfare is much more simple to handle (at least AI doesn't have to move units), but i still use 1/8 of its troops to win wars...

And i can understand that you don't like drawbacks on decisions (about SP), much more easy way to win for sure, maybe it's true that it appeals a streamlined audiance (and you don't like for sure complex games, if you take out the totally useless resources, as an awful decision choice, damn useless cows!)

 

[Celevin]

Just curious--are you playing "get Maritimes, trading post everything"? Or you put in a mine or two? I know slow builds, but not THAT slow . . .

Post-patch, it's more like "fast research". I think most players would agree that the National College early is pretty key. Well, grab that and the entire Classical era flies by before you can build anything.

I am actually concentrating on production with mines and no Maritimes lately, and my production speed is in the gutter. If I spent gold on Maritimes, then that would be even less to spend on buildings. It's already really bad

 

[ash88]

I think many people will disagree with you on this one.

I think that many more people would agree then disagree, but blind speculation isn't ever a good counter-point. Maybe a poll is required.

Well imo, in this case it did.

Awesome! In my case it didn't, but if it rounded out the game for you I envy you.

IMO, the AI is more competitive post patch so id say that it really was a good improvement.

There will always be people that like something, and people that don't. I for one don't agree with you. My sense is that most here wouldn't given the long threads with peoples negative feelings with the new AI. I suppose that the negative reviewers could just be much more vocal while the positive reviewers could be silent? Truth is we will never know. What we do know is that, according to the maintained current bug list and the MP ladders, people aren't playing Civ5 like they were Civ4Vanilla on release. Maybe everyone collectively decided to go outside and throw snow balls around and the reason for the sharp decline has nothing to do with the quality of the game? Don't know.

Im not trying to make fun of you and im sorry if it looks like it. But to me it looks like you honestly think that they are going to -most likely- sell ''improved AI'' or ''improved diplomacy'' or some other big game experience changing system as DLC.
I belive that DLC is meant for something like extra civs, extra units.. etc. NOT for some game changing improvements to the AI or improvement to some other basic concept of the game like diplomacy.

Admittedly there are people who are erroneously comparing Civ5 to Civ4BTS. Some of the concepts that people "miss" will most likely be added in pay-for expansions. I agree with you, and hope that the fundamental stability and balance issues are fixed without me opening my wallet. I'm not opening my wallet again for 2K, ever, unless they release a playable Civ5. I figure for that to be done (if it ever is) will take a couple years. Remember that it took Civ4Vanilla 11 months to get to a good stage through patches, so I figure Civ5 will take twice as long - if it happens.

From a business perspective and with that kind of timeline perhaps they should just go Civ6.

 

[aziantuntija]

And if you agree on five out of seven, can you call this game worth of playing?

Im not sure how to tell you this in the nice way. Well, any of your seven (wich of with five I somehow agreed) reasons for not liking civ5 isnt a game braking issues for me.

And i can understand that you don't like drawbacks on decisions (about SP), much more easy way to win for sure, maybe it's true that it appeals a streamlined audiance (and you don't like for sure complex games, if you take out the totally useless resources, as an awful decision choice, damn useless cows!)

Many people who don’t like civ5 have said that it punishes (a.k.a. gives drawbacks to) the player for doing almost everything there is to do. For example, heres what SuperJay said:

- You're punished for expanding
- You're punished for being successful in war
- You're punished for building an empire
- You're punished for remaining a small state

So at least he thinks we should remove (at least) some of that punishment (drawback) from those things. Maybe you would call it, ‘streamlineing’, i dont know. Anyway, it seems that players get enough drawbacks on making decisions (building buildings, building units, expanding.. etc) in civ5. Also, please dont try to guess what i like and dont like.


@ash88 After reading your post i dont think that you quoted me just so that we could have a meaningful conversation about civ5. But maybe I still just try and answer shortly: You propably should make a poll and ask ''Did the last big patch improve civ5?'' this way we could find out the answer. Altough i said i THINK most people agree that it improved the game, i didnt say i KNOW most people think it improved the game. About diplomacy i said that it IMPROVED diplomacy, i didnt say ''it rounded out the game for me'', okay? You got to start reading more carefully

 

[bananamana]

I didn't. I don't even recall talking to you in the first place. You started badgering me about why I don't like Civ 5, demanded I list my reasons, and then started complaining about me to other Civ fans when I didn't drop everything and answer you immediately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI