Observations from a new Civ 5 player

[Becomedeath]

I'm more concerned with unit animation times. If I'm moving 20 units, each with a combat animation of ~5 seconds each, that's nealy 1 and a half minutes per turn that I'm losing of my life just watching the screen and not doing anything!

Add this to the already heinous turn times that means I'm giving away upto 3 minutes of my life into empty space just by playing a turn!

Over 400 turns thats nearly 20 hours! That's pretty much a whole day!!!! I've lost a day of my life doing nothing and it's not even a Saturday!

Odd though, that the game took 4 hours...perhaps I'm just looking at numbers that support my argument though and taking them completely out of context...

 

[lschnarch]

TheMeInTeam clearly has a strong point about Civ5 being badly optimized in terms of coding, to say the least.

Actually, I feel the same irritation as he does when people are trying to argue against this observation, as the reports have been countless and can easily be found by anybody who is playing the game.
It starts with map textures filled at a rate that you can see the filling process. Sorry, we are in 2011 now.
I vaguely remember such texture filling from my old C-64 and C-128, but that was back in the 80ies.
Sometimes the game does not accept your activation of an unit at first attempt. You will have to try again and then it maybe works.
Sometimes the game does not accept sending a unit to a given target hex at first attempt. You will have to try again and then it maybe works.
And so on, and so on.

I understand anybody who does not like this observation, but it doesn't change the facts.
Civ5 in its current state (talking about patch 1.383) is still badly optimized and runs in a slow manner.
His complaints are justified.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Sometimes the game does not accept sending a unit to a given target hex at first attempt. You will have to try again and then it maybe works.

As best I can tell, this is caused by the interface essentially being too slow for the player, that the proposed movement is not found to be valid until after you've done the mouseclick (or released the mouseclick).

I'm sure TMIT will agree with you on this one.

And yes, this is one of the things I would point to as contributing to an unergonomic interface. Whether it's caused by problems with the engine, or just some poor coding higher up at the interface level I don't know.

An interface that can't keep up with the player's inputs fails in one of its most basic and vital functions - to be efficient. I'm not even a quick player, so I can imagine how it must annoy a person to no end if they are a quick player.

 

[Becomedeath]

This is nothing new in game technology though.

Civ might run a little slow, it might take it's time processing and it might sometimes suffer a little graphical slow down. But Civ 4 was no different, late game turns could quite easily take upward of 30 seconds if you were on a large enough map and had enough units spread between player and AI.

Civ is, and always has been a slow burning game. It's not an action game where time is of the essence and as it's turn based, your speed isn't measured in time anyway.

Could it be better, yes. Is it sufficently bad to make the game unplayable, not by a long shot.

It's got enough bugs to iron out (and combat AI to address) without kicking off about the fact that it's taking 10 seconds longer than you'd like to process it's turns. The level of sophistication in the program already warrants some fairly chunky processing and there is no way of avoiding the fact that it's going to take time to do it, the better it gets the more time it's going to need in fact.

Consider some aspects quirks, rather than problems and you'll end up with fewer ulcers. This is nothing to phone Chicken Licken over.

 

[Roxlimn]

lschnarch:

Put into context, I have no problems with asking for a patch that cleans up the coding on Civ 5. Where I have problems is where this is framed as being unusual to Civ 5 (see: Deus Ex HR, PC), or when as TMIT characterizes it, the turns waste more of your time that you put into the game.

I don't know what TMITis doing, but I'm certainly not spending hours of time looking at a loading icon.

 

[lschnarch]

But Civ 4 was no different, late game turns could quite easily take upward of 30 seconds if you were on a large enough map and had enough units spread between player and AI.

Civ4 was very much different, as in total it was performing much better than Civ5.

Civ4 is based on a graphics engine 6 or more years old now and utilizes only one core of your system. This one core, fuelling that old graphics engine still allows for an all animated map AND the computation of goods being distributed, trade routes, different types of units following different principles and what not more.

Civ5 utilizes at least 2 cores (during map generation even more), has a new graphics engine (developed with the help of NVidia and Microsoft), the map is almost a still in comparison, no distribution of goods has to be calculated (goods are managed just in a binary way: you have them or not) and much less different unit types (note: I am not talking about different combat units only, but about different purposes of unit types as combat units, missionaries, executives and whatnotever)

Nevertheless, any map in Civ4 with the same size as such a map has in Civ5 with the same number of units is moved around the screen much, much, much quicker.

Yes, Civ4 did have lags in the late game, too.
But these lags were caused by much more elements to be processed.
And finally, you would expect an improvement after five or six years in this area, no?

It's got enough bugs to iron out (and combat AI to address) without kicking off about the fact that it's taking 10 seconds longer than you'd like to process it's turns. The level of sophistication in the program already warrants some fairly chunky processing and there is no way of avoiding the fact that it's going to take time to do it, the better it gets the more time it's going to need in fact.

Consider some aspects quirks, rather than problems and you'll end up with fewer ulcers. This is nothing to phone Chicken Licken over.

Following your line of argumentation we wouldn't see any improvement at all until bugs are healed and combat AI gets improved - whenever this actually will happen.

But picking that part of argumentation, we would deny any DLC too, wouldn't we?

I don't know what TMITis doing, but I'm certainly not spending hours of time looking at a loading icon.

But in total you are looking more hours at the screen waiting for the game to compute its turns and actions than you would have to do if it would have been decently programmed.
And that's the point.
Not only Civ5 has quite some weaknesses in desing and functionality, but it's even technically not a good product.

 

[Becomedeath]

But in total you are looking more hours at the screen waiting for the game to compute its turns and actions than you would have to do if it
would have been decently programmed.

And that's the point.

Not only Civ5 has quite some weaknesses in desing and functionality, but it's even technically not a good product.

Ooh, it's a twisty wordy debate this one. Fixing bugs and AI issues are actual problems, optimising code to run faster is a perceived problem and therefore falls way down the list. I've released plenty of things on the understanding that "it works, but I do need to redo the coding to speed it up a bit, but the functionality is there". Functionality trumps time until the time issue makes the program less efficent than it's alternatives.

As for DLC, quite frankly I would much rather that Friaxis focused on repairing what is there than supplying the unnecessary additions. That said, I doubt that the guys building the DLC Civs are the same who programmed the AI anyway, I'd be stunned if they were actually.


Anyway, to the quoted section above:

This is where I think this debate gets itself into a crossfire.

I don't know anyone who plays Civ in a darkened room with nothing else going on at all. Everyone I know appreciates that it's a long game with notable pauses, so you play with a movie, or the TV on or whilst doing anything else that can fill up the gaps. I think to many people that does not make it a bad game. Heck, yesterday a friend of mine asked if I wanted to come over and play Civ and watch Firefly, it's almost universally accepted that you have something to do while you play!!!

What one person is calling wasted time (although how anyone playing a video game can preach about wasting time is beyond me, I thought that was the entire point!) another simply accepts as life and deals with it.

Secondly, I will never understand people who play games they consider to be crap. I tend to stop activities that aren't fun and not use products I consider to be bad.

Perhaps that's why I don't get as concerned about such things.

 

[PieceOfMind]

This is nothing new in game technology though.

Civ might run a little slow, it might take it's time processing and it might sometimes suffer a little graphical slow down. But Civ 4 was no different, late game turns could quite easily take upward of 30 seconds if you were on a large enough map and had enough units spread between player and AI.

Civ4 is far from perfect too, I agree. However I rarely run into cases of being too fast for the UI in that game. That said, it's not too often in civ5 as well, except in late-game.

Civ is, and always has been a slow burning game. It's not an action game where time is of the essence and as it's turn based, your speed isn't measured in time anyway.

All true, but it doesn't excuse making the game slower than it needs to be. You have to draw the line somewhere. If turn times were 10 times longer than they are now, there'd still be people saying they're ok.

Could it be better, yes. Is it sufficently bad to make the game unplayable, not by a long shot.

Agreed. 'Unplayable' is a word thrown around too often. 'Unbearable' may be better.

It's got enough bugs to iron out (and combat AI to address) without kicking off about the fact that it's taking 10 seconds longer than you'd like to process it's turns. The level of sophistication in the program already warrants some fairly chunky processing and there is no way of avoiding the fact that it's going to take time to do it, the better it gets the more time it's going to need in fact.

That's not necessarily true.

The thing is, efficiency improvements are often done last. They're likely still adding a lot of features to the AI at the moment so they're not prioritising improving its speed yet.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As best I can tell, this is caused by the interface essentially being too slow for the player, that the proposed movement is not found to be valid until after you've done the mouseclick (or released the mouseclick).

I'm sure TMIT will agree with you on this one.

That does indeed seem to be the case. It doesn't seem to like to queue input actions and will just discard the next while executing one, which fits with the general civ V hate of queuing anything .

This is nothing new in game technology though.

Unfortunately. But for a new title with a large budget you'd think it would work a little better than 90's games.

Civ might run a little slow, it might take it's time processing and it might sometimes suffer a little graphical slow down. But Civ 4 was no different, late game turns could quite easily take upward of 30 seconds if you were on a large enough map and had enough units spread between player and AI.

High difficulty level huge map civ IV could make a machined spec'd above recommended levels for civ V STILL take turns of 45 seconds+ at war. Unfortunately, civ V takes it to a new level, giving similar slowdown on much smaller maps, despite fewer total units. In the AI case, fewer total units SHOULD equal faster turn times (AI didn't really stack move in civ IV, even with quick moves turned on, so V is fielded 100's less units!)

Could it be better, yes. Is it sufficently bad to make the game unplayable, not by a long shot.

I'd argue otherwise. When there are a decent chunk of players who spend fully half or more of their time unable to play the game, that's pretty unplayable. It's like TREMENDOUSLY BAD lag in a shooter or something. You can still play it technically, but it's an awful experience so not really enjoyable.

By the way, another thread cropped up just now saying that AI turns played in strategic view drastically cut down their turn time. If anything is evidence of sloppy code.........

It's got enough bugs to iron out (and combat AI to address) without kicking off about the fact that it's taking 10 seconds longer than you'd like to process it's turns. The level of sophistication in the program already warrants some fairly chunky processing and there is no way of avoiding the fact that it's going to take time to do it, the better it gets the more time it's going to need in fact.

Are you a professional programmer? Do you know what scripts are going on between turns? If the answer to BOTH of these is not "yes", I ask that we not see things like "the program warrants chunky processing". I could just as easily assert that it should be child's play for the AI to play 1 second turns, and unless you've some actual knowledge of the game code, it would be no less credible.

Consider some aspects quirks, rather than problems and you'll end up with fewer ulcers. This is nothing to phone Chicken Licken over.

Sigh. "U MAD BRO?" Really? Do you HAVE to slip in messages like this instead of formulating some kind of actual argument? Aside from the fact that we've already established that turns should be WAY more than 10 seconds faster, we're getting another "no big deal" argument.....maybe to some people being unable to play the game in front of them for hours on end each game IS a big deal? Maybe it makes the difference of playing it, at all?!

Put into context, I have no problems with asking for a patch that cleans up the coding on Civ 5. Where I have problems is where this is framed as being unusual to Civ 5 (see: Deus Ex HR, PC), or when as TMIT characterizes it, the turns waste more of your time that you put into the game.

I don't know what TMITis doing, but I'm certainly not spending hours of time looking at a loading icon.

Oh, but you are. Whether you want to admit it or not, every single game of civ V you play means you stared at a loading screen for one and probably several hours. Maybe that doesn't sit well with you, maybe you don't want to admit it, but that's what is happening. When you hit end turn 200-300 times and, on average, the game is taking more than 30 seconds to process them, you are staring at a load screen for 2+ hours across each game. Maybe you split those 2 hours up over a week. Maybe you lose them in a single day, but no matter what you do they are there. You can't assert otherwise in the face of fairly massive evidence...

And I've never played Deus Ex. Maybe that sucks at this too? Certainly, while there might be other examples of games that waste such substantial portions of time out there, it isn't USUAL. The only other title I own that is even sort of close is civ IV (which isn't nearly as bad, early turns there are <1 second and late ones only push 30 on large maps. Not good, but not terrible compared to civ V), and I have dozens of games.

Following your line of argumentation we wouldn't see any improvement at all until bugs are healed and combat AI gets improved - whenever this actually will happen.

But picking that part of argumentation, we would deny any DLC too, wouldn't we?

What a concept! Not releasing DLC until the game is done! This would all bother me less if this game was advertised as a beta, and judging by the kind of changes in the june and august patches, it certainly has been in beta mode...

Good points on the maps of IV and V by the way...

Fixing bugs and AI issues are actual problems, optimising code to run faster is a perceived problem and therefore falls way down the list.

You mean like the PERCEIVED problems such as:

- ability to pillage own tiles
- horsemen being ridiculously strong
- social policy storing

and so on? Hmmmmmm, but somehow, I seem to remember changes in these areas, even with raging bugs in multiplayer/single player. Which is it, what is the priority? I don't think you can make this assertion very easily based on evidence.

Functionality trumps time until the time issue makes the program less efficent than it's alternatives.

Civ V is less efficient than civ IV. Both games are less efficient than...pretty much every TBS I've heard of.

As for DLC, quite frankly I would much rather that Friaxis focused on repairing what is there than supplying the unnecessary additions. That said, I doubt that the guys building the DLC Civs are the same who programmed the AI anyway, I'd be stunned if they were actually.

+1, except that I'm tired of the (different people are working on DLC) excuse. That's what it is, an EXCUSE. The company chose where it allocated its programming resources and who it hired. It specifically chose DLC over finished product. No excuses.

I don't know anyone who plays Civ in a darkened room with nothing else going on at all. Everyone I know appreciates that it's a long game with notable pauses, so you play with a movie, or the TV on or whilst doing anything else that can fill up the gaps. I think to many people that does not make it a bad game. Heck, yesterday a friend of mine asked if I wanted to come over and play Civ and watch Firefly, it's almost universally accepted that you have something to do while you play!!!

Assertions based on no evidence that try to make the opposition look bad for playing the way it prefers! Ignored!

What one person is calling wasted time (although how anyone playing a video game can preach about wasting time is beyond me, I thought that was the entire point!) another simply accepts as life and deals with it.

More of the same argument! Okay, I'll do it back:

My preferences are better than yours, so you are wrong. Back to the argument now?

Secondly, I will never understand people who play games they consider to be crap. I tend to stop activities that aren't fun and not use products I consider to be bad.

I kind of fell off the civ V scene until recent patches, for a reason. Now that the rules are semi decent and MP actually exists, the one remaining hurtle for me is that I still can't play the game, because it won't let me for 50% of the time it's open. A CORE FEATURE is NOT working properly here, and it's affecting more people than me. It's affecting everyone, only difference being the extent that they notice or care. I have unkind things to say regarding people who blithely accept the state of things as such, so I won't say them.

Civ4 is far from perfect too, I agree. However I rarely run into cases of being too fast for the UI in that game.

It's actually possible, but probably only RTS style movements can make that happen. Careful attention to some of my let's plays shows it off now and then .

In civ V I can outmove the interface practically any time I want, but that's more like 10 minutes (guessing since it's harder to estimate/time such short periods) lost per game or less instead of hours. Picking battles here :/.

The thing is, efficiency improvements are often done last. They're likely still adding a lot of features to the AI at the moment so they're not prioritising improving its speed yet.

What I don't like about this statement is the implications it carries for a retail product :/.

Anyway, I'm going to see if strategic view actually makes the game run faster. If it does, I may have even more fuel here...why should off-screen actions make such a difference depending on view? If that's true, then suddenly we're talking about game-graphics somehow limiting AI play, and the whole thing about AI optimization is somewhat out the window...

 

[Arilian]

I remember that I played the original colonisation on a below minimum config and ath the end one turn could took 5 minutes to process.

I did drink/eat/read/weightlift in the meantime and one game took days. but still pleaed

Honestly, I would except a maximum of 2 SEC turn time. CIV 2 worked on 1000 times slower computers and the aI was ok (not good) and turns was just a few seconds. The same algorithm could only take miliseconds for one turn.

 

[Becomedeath]

Unfortunately. But for a new title with a large budget you'd think it would work a little better than 90's games.

I'd argue that it is. You'd be hard pushed to find a game in the 90s that has Civ 5s capabilities, unpolished as they are.

I'd argue otherwise. When there are a decent chunk of players who spend fully half or more of their time unable to play the game, that's pretty unplayable. It's like TREMENDOUSLY BAD lag in a shooter or something. You can still play it technically, but it's an awful experience so not really enjoyable.

You're talking about being forced to wait to take your turn. It's nothing like lag in a live action environment. It's not even in the same sport let alone ball park. It's inconvienient at best and ignorable should you choose to ignore it, clearly, you don't and I do, which is probably why we have mexican standoff here.

By the way, another thread cropped up just now saying that AI turns played in strategic view drastically cut down their turn time. If anything is evidence of sloppy code.........

Not really, you have to allow for graphical changes if you're using the normal interface, animations, movements etc. all take up processing power, perhaps even moreso than the rest of the AI engine depending on how much movement you're talking about.

Are you a professional programmer? Do you know what scripts are going on between turns? If the answer to BOTH of these is not "yes", I ask that we not see things like "the program warrants chunky processing". I could just as easily assert that it should be child's play for the AI to play 1 second turns, and unless you've some actual knowledge of the game code, it would be no less credible.

This is a little pointless as I could say I was an submarine captain and you'd have no way of proving it. But yes, I am a "professional programmer" and whilst I couldn't tell you specifically what scripts are running in between turns, I do know enough of the background to Civs AI engine to make an educated guess. To be honest, I have better things to do with my time than to open up the game code to make a point on a forum.

However, as a professional I know from experience that a comment such as "chunky code" gets the point across without alienating anyone.

To detail however, each turn requires the AI to make building decisions, city management choices, unit movements, winning scenario decisions, exploration, worker maintainance, diplomatic relations with other civs, assesments of your relative positon and perceived strategy, defensive and offensive military build\action choices, graphics, scoring, barbarian movements....the list can go on and on and on and is done for each civilisation in turn, so on a standard map it's running that 7 times....all of that = some fairly chunky code to run inside a 30 second window.

Sigh. "U MAD BRO?" Really? Do you HAVE to slip in messages like this instead of formulating some kind of actual argument?

Actually, that is a point. The issue is being blown well into "the sky is falling in" territory and I really don't see why it is such an issue that it warrants the level of attack you're giving it.

When you hit end turn 200-300 times and, on average, the game is taking more than 30 seconds to process them, you are staring at a load screen for 2+ hours across each game. Maybe you split those 2 hours up over a week. Maybe you lose them in a single day, but no matter what you do they are there. You can't assert otherwise in the face of fairly massive evidence...

The entire problem here is that it's subjective time. You're losing it, others are not. I'm not losing any time playing, I'm making good use of my time and am still struggling to understand why you're holding onto those 30 second periods as if you were going to invent free limitless energy with the time.

You mean like the PERCEIVED problems such as:

- ability to pillage own tiles
- horsemen being ridiculously strong
- social policy storing

No, I mean problems that are universal and not subject to the users interpretation of the issue as a problem. Time is subjective, gameplay elements working contrary to their intended function are quite measurable.

Although with your three examples.

- Just don't pillage them
- No they're not, they're in line with swordsmen and both are classical techs
- Never understood peoples problem with this, turn it on, turn it off...you have options.

Which is it, what is the priority? I don't think you can make this assertion very easily based on evidence.

Yes I can, as above. Time, is relative. As has been said over and over, you believe you're wasting time, many others just accept it as an element and multitask.

+1, except that I'm tired of the (different people are working on DLC) excuse. That's what it is, an EXCUSE. The company chose where it allocated its programming resources and who it hired. It specifically chose DLC over finished product. No excuses.

That doesn't make sense. I wouldn't hire a programming team to develop an AI engine and then set them to basically setting up new civs. You can get extremely junior programmers to incorporate new civs, the fundamental AI engine underlying the game shouldn't care what Civ it's working with. So new additions are blinking coloured lights, they're not the tree.

Assertions based on no evidence that try to make the opposition look bad for playing the way it prefers! Ignored!

Of course it's not based on evidence, it's not supposed to be. The point is that if you choose to play in such a fashion that your only focus is the game and that nothing else around you could possibly take up your attention for ~20 seconds while the computer does something, then who really is at fault?

My preferences are better than yours, so you are wrong. Back to the argument now?

That is generally how debates work yes.

I have unkind things to say regarding people who blithely accept the state of things as such, so I won't say them.

I don't think calling someone chilled out is particularly unkind, go right ahead.

In civ V I can outmove the interface practically any time I want, but that's more like 10 minutes (guessing since it's harder to estimate/time such short periods) lost per game or less instead of hours. Picking battles here :/.

This I think is the core of the problem, Civ has never been a fast paced game, trying to treat it as such is going to produce a skewered view of how the mechanics function. Yes, you should be able to move as fast as you like, but it just doesn't work that way.

What I don't like about this statement is the implications it carries for a retail product :/.

Sadly, that's the way it's going. I've said on numerous occasions, the ability to patch a game post release is a license to release inferior products. Just look at the patch notes for the first major patch, in October, less than a month after relase.

Civ 5 was never tested properly or formally in my opinion. Had it been, many of the issues, including turn time, would have been resolved. The digital age doesn't always produce better results, in fact it has a lot to answer for in terms of programming quality control.

Anyway, I'm going to see if strategic view actually makes the game run faster. If it does, I may have even more fuel here...why should off-screen actions make such a difference depending on view? If that's true, then suddenly we're talking about game-graphics somehow limiting AI play, and the whole thing about AI optimization is somewhat out the window...

Good luck and I genuinely hope you get the faster game you're looking for (to disagree with someone is not to wish to deny them the outcome of their argument), but I'm afraid it doesn't actually support your side if it does. If anything it disables your argument as you now have an option to make the game run faster and therefore your complaint ceases to exist unless you choose to continue to hold on to it....


EDIT - didn't have time to proof read so apologies in advance for any such issues, Friday reports need doing..../sigh

 

[Camikaze]

Wrong. The problem is more *noticeable* to me because I speed play civ.

This is the key, for me. I can't argue with what you say about turn wait times being inordinately long, because I simply haven't noticed. I haven't timed it, because I haven't ever felt a need to. I just don't *notice* it. Does this make it any less of a problem? I think so. If I haven't noticed it, then it's apparently not effecting me greatly. On the other hand, that doesn't make sloppy coding any more defensible, but I think that's a different thing from thinking that it's a major (or 'game-breaking', perhaps) issue. I mean, I don't doubt that you are correct in what you are saying about turn times or poor development in this regard, but I do think representing it as an objectively Big Issue is perhaps not entirely accurate.

Maybe this is because for the first few years I played Civ4, it was on a computer that made me wait up to half an hour between late game turns. I've been conditioned.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is the key, for me. I can't argue with what you say about turn wait times being inordinately long, because I simply haven't noticed. I haven't timed it, because I haven't ever felt a need to. I just don't *notice* it. Does this make it any less of a problem? I think so. If I haven't noticed it, then it's apparently not effecting me greatly. On the other hand, that doesn't make sloppy coding any more defensible, but I think that's a different thing from thinking that it's a major (or 'game-breaking', perhaps) issue. I mean, I don't doubt that you are correct in what you are saying about turn times or poor development in this regard, but I do think representing it as an objectively Big Issue is perhaps not entirely accurate.

Maybe this is because for the first few years I played Civ4, it was on a computer that made me wait up to half an hour between late game turns. I've been conditioned.

You're still looking at perception vs reality. As I pointed out, the longer you take to play one game, the less 2+ hours is going to represent. However, those 2 hours are always there and for quite a few players (and virtually the entire MP community that plays with a timer) they are significant.

Interestingly, the other thread started about reducing turn times by playing in strategic view is accurate. I ran a test game played solely in strat view and an immortal war turn took 5-6 seconds, instead of well over 20 seconds, in the late BCs. Very significant! This suggests that firaxis decided that players wanted to spend over 2 hours on unit animations, most of which they can't physically see.......pretty hard to defend that choice.

I'd be happy if they just give an option to turn animations off and then streamlined the code a bit. 5-6 seconds is still on the long side, but far less outrageous than 40.

But why is this an issue at all? Priority in a STRATEGY game is very messed up when the AI spends six times as long moving units as it does deciding which movements to make...why are offscreen movements taking perceivable time at all?!

 

[bcaiko]

This is the key, for me. I can't argue with what you say about turn wait times being inordinately long, because I simply haven't noticed. I haven't timed it, because I haven't ever felt a need to. I just don't *notice* it. Does this make it any less of a problem? I think so. If I haven't noticed it, then it's apparently not effecting me greatly. On the other hand, that doesn't make sloppy coding any more defensible, but I think that's a different thing from thinking that it's a major (or 'game-breaking', perhaps) issue. I mean, I don't doubt that you are correct in what you are saying about turn times or poor development in this regard, but I do think representing it as an objectively Big Issue is perhaps not entirely accurate.

I've never thought of the game as being slow to process turns, either. Though I'm playing it on a brand new laptop.

 

[qemist]

That's not realpolitik, that's either poor game edsign or bad coding.

I don't see what the alternative to "dealing with your neighbors long enough to gain an advantage and press that for your chosen victory condition" is. The game has a well-defined objective and every part of it is either to be manipulated to achieve that objective or it is merely decorative. Historically dealing with your neighbors in such a way as to gain an advantage (tribute, territorial concessions, trade preferences, alliances etc) is what diplomacy has been about.

And lot of witty quotes are just wrong anyway. Real diplomacy is trying to make the other guy do what you want, preferably without force of arms.

True, and what you want is whatever you think will be advantageous to you.

I've never seen the AI in Civ5 try to bribe me and the only proxy wars i've ever seen were between city state. All they do is complain, demand and insult.

I agree the diplomacy is superficial and needs improvement. Perhaps Firaxis adopted the "never give the player anything" rule because they thought it would make the game more challenging, or they were afraid players would learn to game the diplomacy for free stuff.

 

[Bezurn]

I hate spaghetti quoting, but at least I'll make it more understandable hopefully.

To finish computer's turn : 45 seconds

Ouch! In a 300 turn game you're talking over 3 hours of nothing if that's your average...kind of helping my point.

I choose this game save to provide you the best case for your argument. A machine that barely meets minimum requirements playing on a large map late in the game. Only 3/10 civs have been wiped out. Do all of the turns take that long? No only the turns in the late game here take that long on my machine. In the early and mid game the turns are roughly 5-20 secs for the computer (unless I'm in a war, where the animations play).

Had you looked at the save game (large, continents, epic speed) you would see that I have a culture victory in about 40-50 turns or so coming, and I'm not even focusing on it. Or I could beeline space in roughly the same time. I can end the game there if I so chose, but am doing the time victory achievement here for sadistic fun.

Regardless, this is TURN BASED game, there is bound to be some downtime while the computer takes its TURN..,.

Computer runs off of scripts and algorithms. Care to explain how this can possibly take longer than the human?

The computer processes one player's turn faster than a human, unless you do absolutely nothing during your turn which will never be the case for ~75% of the time. The thing is, the computer has to process more than one player's turn. If you count city states as about 1/4 of a civ, then it has to process roughly 13 player's turns. That equates roughly to 3-5 seconds per player turn. When at peace about 10 turns later after my last post I was getting turn times of 35 seconds, in either or out of strategic view made little to no difference.

I also don't think you understand how much of a burden it is on the computer to have the 1upt restriction. In previous titles they could program it to put any number of units they desired at a given location. Now it has to not only ensure that the units go to the general area that the computer finds of strategic value, but to also attempt to sort them in a matter that is strategically sound. An extra routine or two added for each unit that wasn't there in previous titles is probably one of the biggest causes of increased turn times. (This is where the AI fails that allows combat to be too easy, along with not proper scouting to better arrange it's armies.)

How about chess? Unless you're playing rapid/blitz ect then there can be a lot of time 'doing nothing'.

Over the years, if there is ONE thing this board should have concluded, it's that civ =/= chess.

You're right, chess is far simpler. As such programmers have set up book positions it can refer to improve and greatly speed up its play. Civ is far more complex with dynamic maps and settings for each and every game. Therefore there are no quick and dirty shortcuts (beyond cheating, which they try to limit) that programmers can make to enhance the game to play nearly instantly during its turn. It has to burn through a ton of if else statements and loops, each of them creating more and more overhead as more game features are introduced for computation.

My point was to illustrate how even a simple game can have wasted time while the computer computes its next movement.

But overall computer games in general are 'a waste of time' and so what is the difference clicking and shooting or sitting and thinking.

Not everyone needs 3 hours to sit and think about simple/memorized maneuvers. In fact, most people don't. The point of games is to PLAY them and HAVE FUN. The sole basis of your argument, as it stands, is that doing nothing is fun for you. That's great and all, but that doesn't defend a game purporting to be something else in actuality making you spend half your time doing nothing.

You've missed the point here. Does it matter how I 'waste my time.' Or 'Have fun' Clicking or watching? Or are you going to argue that computer games are not a waste of time? There is no tangible reward for completing a game faster or slower. Civ is a beast you can beat, but never conquer. There will always be one more game, with one more turn to play until you get sick of it. The only thing you accomplish is getting bored of the game quicker or slower possibly. So is that what you want to achieve from this then ultimately, so you can bow out from the civ community eventually?

You do know there are things you can do while you wait for the computer to take it's turn right? Open the diplomatic overview and look for potential trades, queue a contact for a civ or city state at the start of your next turn. Issue new build commands for a city for next turn. Sure the interface may be a bit slow to respond, but you can still do the commands and it registers most of the time, thus increasing the speed of taking your turn. If they allowed worker actions to be queued, something sorely missed from IV, then taking a turn would be very short doing some of your actions while the computer is also thinking. This would deflate your argument about wasting time doing nothing while the computer takes it's turns.

Also if you wish to speed up gameplay further, from the advanced start menu you can turn on 'quick combat' which will allow you to view the game in normal mode. Strategic view is still a bit quicker, as the processor has overhead in processing animations. The graphics card's duty is just to render what the processor crunches from the code that is stored in memory. The biggest problem with strategic view is that you can't easily distinguish units that are being focused on by ranged attacks. Again another case where they need to reintroduce a feature from Civ 4, the combat log.

But let me say this so there is no confusion. I agree with you that civ 5 turns take too long. I think you missed that in my post as it wasn't clear.

It is just that some people view them as acceptable compared to the alternative. Which in my opinion are board games, I view in essence what Civ is. A big complicated game of Axis and Allies or Risk that I can play alone or with a few friends if I choose and not waste anyone elses time waiting for turn times.

 

[Roxlimn]

TheMeInTeam:

I see the unit animations, though, and I LIKE watching the units animations. That's what dun told you I was doing when I wasn't playing my turn.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TheMeInTeam:

I see the unit animations, though, and I LIKE watching the units animations. That's what dun told you I was doing when I wasn't playing my turn.

You can't watch unit animations in the fog! Why are they happening ?

Also all this talk of 1UPT slowing the game down is nonsense. There are 100's fewer units in civ V than IV, and in civ IV they moved them all individually. This point is proven even further in that the vast majority of turn times is cut instantly on strategic view, which is where I will be playing from now on. So much for this "clunky processing" theory. Nope, just good old fashion crappy engine + design choice. No effort to only process animations on-screen? Really? At least the game is playable to people who play quickly in strategic view.

It looks like the masses out-vote me here unfortunately. Seems most are fine w/ 2 hours waiting for interface each game. Oh well.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You can't watch unit animations in the fog! Why are they happening ?

Also all this talk of 1UPT slowing the game down is nonsense. There are 100's fewer units in civ V than IV, and in civ IV they moved them all individually. This point is proven even further in that the vast majority of turn times is cut instantly on strategic view, which is where I will be playing from now on. So much for this "clunky processing" theory. Nope, just good old fashion crappy engine + design choice. No effort to only process animations on-screen? Really? At least the game is playable to people who play quickly in strategic view.

It looks like the masses out-vote me here unfortunately. Seems most are fine w/ 2 hours waiting for interface each game. Oh well.

Sorry TMIT but I think you've got it backwards. Moving units in a 1UPT environment is a more computationally-intensive task than in an unlimited stacking environment. Obviously having fewer units would make things easier too, so there'd be a break even point somewhere where both games are about the same in terms of computer resources needed for processing unit movement. That said, we may be talking about mere seconds rather than the 45-ish seconds we suspected earlier. If most of the lag in a turn is caused by engine problems or unit animations, the extra complexity from 1UPT may be of little relevance.

Unfortunately, it's hard to say anything for sure without some access to the code and the ability to actually time how long functions take to process. Or maybe that is a possible to a limited extent, but I haven't read of anyone doing this yet. If I recall, Afforess and Sephi were the main guys doing it for civ4 (timing things to identify areas for efficiency improvements). Probably EmperorFool too.

By the way, are you sure they move units all individually in civ4? I was fairly sure there's blocks of code that treat units as stacks. So while units may have to be literally moved one by one, they're treated as stacks in the code. How else can you explain that the AI clearly builds stacks?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^The AI logic treated them as stacks, but they moved them all one-by-one. You can even see this in my earth challenge let's play, because I can literally see individual units moving from tile to tile in cathy's "stack" late game...with "show moves" turned off! Whatever the AI logic may be, it does NOT group units in a stack and stack move in the traditional sense the human does.

Also very annoying is that the AI uses different algorithms for its own workers compared to human auto-workers -----> Firaxis DELIBERATELY made human auto workers worse ! I'm not sure if that's true in V but it definitely is in IV. Why have in-game features if you make them deliberately terrible ! It's almost as bad as their BTS space elevator travesty (making it placed such that it will virtually always slow down space wins, a deliberate red herring. Not cool. Why have USELESS game options?!).