1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

My impressions after spending 3 days in the game

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Eyeoftiger, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. Troymk1

    Troymk1 Warlord

    Jul 27, 2007
    Another Civ I veteran here

    I've played 3 games of V so far.

    The first game was exciting, played as Napoleon on a world map. Ended up taking out some city states blocking my path to Hegemony. Then settling in for the long game and built the Space ship. Was an interesting learning experience, and the French culture ability was quite useful.

    Second game as Bismarck I harvested dozens of barbarian units to knock over all my early rivals to find I had basically bankrupted my civilization and happiness.

    Third game tried to be much more circumspect as Bismarck and watching India and England pull ahead.

    This version does seem dumbed down, which is not the same thing as stream lined.

    The Nation specific abilities are in no way even (Germany basically gets punished for theirs)

    City States are a money sink if you wish to deal with them. So I have ignored them in these last 2 games.

    Cities need to specialize.

    Combat is pretty cool. But the game does seem lacking in gravitas.

    I feel like this is Civ for my son's generation, and perhaps that is why some of us are not that enthused and others are loving it.
  2. rbj2001

    rbj2001 Warlord

    May 26, 2006
    Inclined to agree.

    I remember playing Civ I on my Atari ST, with endless floppy disk changes, and it was more fun than this latest edition!
  3. Quagga

    Quagga Former Dictator

    Aug 31, 2006
    Li'l Rhody
    I'm trying to like the game, but it's slow going.

    For one, the game is slow. Why it takes so long between turns even in the early game is beyond me. At least with III and IV, you knew it was slow because of the zillions of units everybody would have in the late game. This game is slow pretty much all the time.

    I've played several games now, though I haven't finished a one. Some games, I just can't seem to get the civilization off the ground. Others, everything clicked (for reasons I'm not quite sure of), then it became a relatively boring exercise of mopping up (same as III and IV in that respect).

    I do like the ranged combat.

    The no stacking units is very different, but seems pretty good. But what I don't like is that sometimes my units take the long way around unexpectedly due to the no stacking. I have to remember to not just click on the hex, because results can be unpredictable.

    It takes so long to build units that, if anybody attacks you, there is no way to respond unless you have a bunch of units hanging around. But who can afford to do that? I usually find myself running low on money.

    I'll still keep playing. I'm hoping it's going to grow on me.
  4. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Feb 14, 2009
    Iowa USA
    I think alot of what you said made sense. With Civ 4 I had just a blast, complete fun. When it comes to civ 5 I think elements of it are fun, mainly moving my armies, on a hex grid 1upt(I have loved that since the days of Avalon Hill tactical war games). The interface seems to be quick and easy. I get the feeling something is missing while I play it. I miss the events, religions, espionage, all of those just made civ so much more realistic. I suppose I just have to look on it in a different light, that CIV5 is it's own entity. I hope the expansion packs add some fun elements back into the game. And for God Sakes put Babylon on a dlc so I can purchase it. I feel like my game is missing it's left shoe. Babylon, one of the earliest civs in history and they leave it out. I would love to know who's bright idea that was.

    Several times starting a mod on a giant map on civ 4, I forgot to research a tech in the first turn. On the first turn you are so busy that when you get done, you just want to press the end turn button and be done with it. With Civ 5 I like how everything going on is shown to you on the side of the screen, like you would see in Empire total war. I have not forgotten to do anything, the game however, needs more meat to it.
  5. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Dec 31, 2005
    I keep wondering if the slowness of production in the early game is mainly due to loss of slavery/chopping.

    Chopping is weaker now, and you can't convert food into hammers. It may be that the units and buildings early on are similar in cost to CivIV, but there is no good way to speed them up early (buying things early on is too expensive to do it often).
  6. Aldor

    Aldor King

    Nov 26, 2005
    I think thats it. We're used to slavery and mass chopping. Of course when these aren't there it will feel like nothing is moving. In my very first game, I eventually set all cities to focus production. This helped quite a bit. You will loose growth (and science) doing so of course.

    Also about gold, yes in the beginning its not so plentiful. But at the end, I had so much that I was literally building any and all buildings I could and was still pulling in 500+ gold per turn. Finished with some 18000+ gold...simply couldn't spend it all. I guess commerce SPs helped too.

    So overall, I agree with the OP, the start of the game feels slow. Not sure if anything SHOULD be done about this however, because if you get a game going, things become a lot better.
  7. JanusTalaiini

    JanusTalaiini Prince

    Dec 12, 2005

    This, completely this. I'm -really- trying to like this game, but it just doesn't make me feel like I'm really in charge of an empire on the stage of history. It feels too much like... a strategy game where you're trying to win.

    An odd complaint, I know. Personally, though, I've never played Civ games to "win." I've played literally hundreds of Civ 4 games over the past few years, and I can count on one hand the number of games I've finished. I play it for the ride, not for the end. And this version feels focused on getting to the end.

    I'll keep trying, but so far, it just doesn't grab me.
  8. KingMorgan

    KingMorgan Deity

    May 6, 2008
    In the clouds
    I have all the Civ titles, it's the only game I play.

    Civ5 is ok, but it doesn't have the "one more turn" that EVERY previous civ game has had. It looks fancy and has new concepts but it doesn't grab me like it should, the 1upt is good but the AI cannot handle it against human opponents.

    I know all new releases have bugs, but there some glaring issues that i cannot believe weren't picked up in the beta tests - resource trading for one. Thats a blatant bug that should have been ID'd by the testers.

    Unrelated, but if Tech Ian off the 2k forum was my employee he'd be looking for a new job, I'm surprised 2k think his postings are acceptable when dealing with the (admitedly stupid) general public.

    It's sad situation when I spend more time cruising this forum than playing the latest civ fanchise.
  9. Rexflex

    Rexflex Prince

    Oct 1, 2005
    Yes, the changes are confusing a number of people into thinking there is no information. For the instance of city happiness/unhappiness, people could be having trouble finding information about it because actually it is no longer a city-by-city calculation - it is one calculation for your whole empire. Understand that, and then it becomes clear that you don't look for this information in the city screen.
  10. Glencore

    Glencore Chieftain

    Jul 4, 2006
    Yeah I agree. It all adds up, possibly hoping the brand name would carry it and modders would fill the gaps?
  11. tdenissen

    tdenissen Chieftain

    Sep 25, 2010
    I have played civ since CIV1 and this is the most disappointing version since then. The 'improved' graphics make the game confusing and it gives me a Age of Empire feeling, that i don't want.

    Also, the game does not have the 'let me play just a little more'-factor and does not force me to play a little bit too long. It just does not apeal enough to me.

    When Civ4 was released I remember needing a few games to get the hang of it, but that was only a few. Now I played 4 round and must conclude that I am a bit disappointed. Hope that will change by time, but i doupt.
  12. moscaverde

    moscaverde Prince

    Apr 26, 2004
    Looks like we play in the same way. Some of my best games I lost, but had a reward feeling.
  13. lou4gehrig

    lou4gehrig Chieftain

    Jan 12, 2007
    I somewhat agree with the OP. It does seem boring for some reason. Not to say I haven't been drawn in playing it.

    I think the main reason is the passiveness of the AI. Of course this will change with patches. When the AI starts acting in a random manner and competing more intelligently, it should be alot of fun.
  14. kiahoga

    kiahoga Chieftain

    Jan 5, 2003
    Henderson, NV
    I've played a couple of games so far as Japan and I must say it is different. Now ive seen some people complaining about Civ V not having this or that and I find myself saying GIVE IT TIME. Other than religions which was in the initial release everything else like espionage and corporations came out over two Expansions.

    Yes Civ IV had 7 religions but was I the only person that ever saw more than three, and since the AI's shared everything all it determined was who was in what alliance. And the other religions that came with later tech were really only used by Human players to maximize their freedom of religion bonus. So everything wasn't all hunky dorie.

    As the game matures new and interesting concepts will come out and be implemented
  15. Drawmeus

    Drawmeus Emperor

    Jul 25, 2007
    I had some of these issues at first.

    The AI is weaker overall than it was in Civ IV. You need to play a higher difficulty than in Civ 4 BTS to get a similar challenge. And if you were a Deity-level player, god help you.

    To be fair, the base Civ 4 AI was terrible also - remember that they packed in a better-AI mod in either BTS or Warlords - but this is a glaring issue right now.

    As far as having slow, boring early turns, it took me a bit to get the hang of it, but I've gotten much better at it and can actually have some pretty snappy starts, where I'll have a settler coming out fairly early and a second one purchased by gold not long afterwards, if my initial unit got a gear upgrade and managed to kill off a couple barbarian camps/met a couple city states.

    Biggest issue for me - the Steam Cloud saves have broken like 5 different ways so far. I'd have saved a lot of headache just by emailing save files back and forth :crazyeye:
  16. DonWaLd

    DonWaLd Chieftain

    Apr 19, 2007
    Biggest problem I've noticed with the happiness system in Civ V is that you can just completely neglect it and it makes conquering the world easier. 2 honor policies and 1 great general completely make up for the -33% combat odds, each city you take ups your science and income just as well as growing an old city; and since you build almost no buildings, (if you annex everything) you have no costs to pay. Playing it like this you end up making tons of cash a turn and stay on par in science, (until you make trade depots each give science at which point you win) I'm seriously about to ramp this up to deity, and in cIV I could barely win on immortal.
  17. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Oct 18, 2005
    Phoenix, AZ
    I don't miss religion - at all. That is for sure. I don't know why people fixate on it. It made Civ IV into a team game. If you want teams - set them up in the advanced options screen - then it's an option instead of a given. Other than that, religions added culture and gold - two things that are in Civ 5.

    Dunno, I'm up there in age and I'm enjoying the game.

    I'm not having much of problem with production vs food vs gold other than keeping in the black for gold is almost always a pain with how I play.

    Happiness seems pretty clear to me. Get luxury resource, get 5 global happy. Gain a pop, lose a happy. IMO, managing global happy is trickier and more involved than managing it at the city level (Civ IV). Both are good mechanics - Civ 5 is just different from Civ IV. If a city gets unhappy in Civ IV it's "ho hum, no biggie, easily remedied." If you go unhappy in Civ 5 it's more like "Oh crap, growth is slowed (no biggie) and it's risky to create a new city or conquer something (bigger deal)"

    I don't think the game is perfect - several things annoy me (tactical AI is pretty poor, diplo has issues, AIs seem to only know how to rex and conquest, game pace and production costs tied to AI's in ability to manage their troops well lead to a bad wave effect (AIs build an army - a wave, then they inevitably use it on someone - if successfull, they continue, if not, they're so debilitated they're fodder for the next AI who peaks) - the bad part of the wave is that with production speeds being so slow, it's near impossible for AIs to survive once they waste their army - they're undefended for 10+ turns. I think this is why it's common to see AIs gobble each other up in a handful of turns.

    I don't buy the "Civ IV AI sucked at release so it's ok that Civ 5's AI sucks at release" BS. AI should've been one of the major focuses of the game and there's no excuse for the AI using lemming tactics given how blatantly obvious the rules of combat are. Keeping some troops in reserve is like a golden rule of this kind of system and the AIs blow everything all the time. They also don't use terrain, don't support melee with ranged except by accident, march ranged troops right up to cities and enemy units. The AI has zero patience - it just throws troops at you hoping for a miracle. This isn't just bad AI - it's an abomination. I could understand the AI being tactically weak but it being utterly moronic is just pitiful. How could any of the testers NOT have commented on this and had it corrected months ago?

    It's sad that the most challenge part of combat in the game is the exploration phase - the barbarians are smarter than the AI civs. :p

    But I'm having fun trying different maps and victory types. Diplo victory flat out doesn't appeal to me but I've done a few cultural, a few conquest, and one space race victory.
  18. rbj2001

    rbj2001 Warlord

    May 26, 2006
    Probably because they set a release date and then just published whatever they had, rather than waiting until they'd finished the game and then releasing it.

    It's totally ridiculous that we're on version 17 already, less than a week after the release date! Back in the good old days you'd buy a game from the shop, and that was it. It would have been tested thoroughly and you got the finished product. I do not approve of the recent trend that seems to render us all beta-testers.
  19. Bigend

    Bigend Chieftain

    Sep 24, 2010
    It's not just game companies that do it either. If you do a fresh install of Windows or Mac OS the first thing it does is download hundreds of megs of patches. The Internet has changed the way software is developed.
  20. cbucks

    cbucks Warlord

    Feb 26, 2010
    The happiness feature is just sort of 'meh' - I had 68 unhappiness and still conquered the world by 1400AD using 4 units and a great general.

    I feel as though no decisions are really that important and if you just keep clicking next turn you are going to win.

    Go re-read some of the old ALC's from Civ IV - 10 pages about where to settle and or move your warrior/scout to determine if you should move the settler. Does anybody really believe there is going to be that kind of strategy in this new game? You could give Obsolete, Grashopa and Dirk the same game and they would each come up with three entirely different ways to win that game for Civ IV - I doubt there will be anything like that in Civ V

Share This Page