Patch is out!!!

[FlyingDutchman7]

Thanks to the patch for showing us what's wrong with the Diplo system!
I really think there should come a patch which ruduces the speed of which this message pops up: 'They convet land that you currently own'.
When someone (even your friends) build cities near you, they get all mad that YOU made a mistake and you own land that they convet, while YOUR land is exactly between his main empire and his little new city. I had this with my latest game: I became really good friends with Germany in the beginning from the game (the last game they were able to destroy me), but now in turn 270 they've denounced us. Before they denounced us the only bad thing they had to say about me was that I refused 1 offer (which I'll never do again, I'll just offer him what I want, and when he accepts that message doesn't pop up), but after they denounced us, there also was a message that they covet land I own.
I also think that if a whole empire (Germany in my case) is between you and another empire (Rome), they shouldn't covet land you own!
Another issue with me is the 'sphere of influence'. How big is that? Singapore was in Germany's sphere of influence (after their denunciation), but Singapore is on the other side of my empire (which is long, not so wide because of a mountain range)

I just want to say: next patch: change the diplo system ITSELF, not the appearance.

 

[Mark the Bold]

The overall feel of the game is so much better now, I was really amazed at what was done.

/QUOTE]

Amen. Night and day. AI actually plays like a decent, though a bit dim, human player. No longer the pants-on-head ******ed behaviour pre-patch. Diplomacy is spot on; enduring friendships alliances are possible. Also, never ever declare war on an open borders Civ. You will be denounced continuously until the end of the game. Which is kinda cool. An open borders deal is a great idea on harder difficulties to protect yourself from powerful neighbors; the consequences are dire to break it.

What I really enjoyed was that now cities are tougher than badgers to take pre-artillery. Especially with walls and castles. Sieges / heal-retreats in excess of 15-20 turns are now required to take fortified hill cities. Actually makes you celebrate once you take them after much blood spilled. No longer the one-horseman-AI-apocalypse-invading "armies" strategy to take out pesky Civs. No sir. No you have to work at it.

Good job Greg and Firaxis! A whole new game experience!

 

[Lorteungen]

Is anybody else crashing like crazy now? I have tried to play two games now with the new patch and I crash every 10-30 minutes.

I'm playing on small maps, which the PC handled fine with the previous patch.

Other than that, I am pleased with the new patch. The game is much more exciting now with the "smarter" AI and the new diplomacy functions.

I had some issues with crashing pre-patch, but it's much worse now and it starts much earlier in the game. I never used to crash before turn 150 or so, now it starts at turn 60! It still seems to be connected to saving the game somehow.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Thanks to the patch for showing us what's wrong with the Diplo system!
I really think there should come a patch which ruduces the speed of which this message pops up: 'They convet land that you currently own'.
When someone (even your friends) build cities near you, they get all mad that YOU made a mistake and you own land that they convet, while YOUR land is exactly between his main empire and his little new city. I had this with my latest game: I became really good friends with Germany in the beginning from the game (the last game they were able to destroy me), but now in turn 270 they've denounced us. Before they denounced us the only bad thing they had to say about me was that I refused 1 offer (which I'll never do again, I'll just offer him what I want, and when he accepts that message doesn't pop up), but after they denounced us, there also was a message that they covet land I own.
I also think that if a whole empire (Germany in my case) is between you and another empire (Rome), they shouldn't covet land you own!
Another issue with me is the 'sphere of influence'. How big is that? Singapore was in Germany's sphere of influence (after their denunciation), but Singapore is on the other side of my empire (which is long, not so wide because of a mountain range)

I just want to say: next patch: change the diplo system ITSELF, not the appearance.

Why on earth not?

 

[Buccaneer]

Why on earth not?

Exactly. Not only should the AI covet your and everyone else's lands, but it should specifically target the human player and its penchant for expansion and territorial blocks.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Post patch is definitely an.....*improvement*, but from my experiences so far it still has a fair way to go. I'd like to see them bring back Pacts of Co-Operation & Pacts of Secrecy, alongside the current Denouncements & Friendship Declarations. I also want to see a future patch deal with ongoing graphics issues-like the look of cities & rivers. I'll need to play a bit more, though, to see just how much better the game is, but its nice not having to play with about a dozen mods in play-just to make the experience enjoyable.

Aussie.

 

[Islet]

Exactly. Not only should the AI covet your and everyone else's lands, but it should specifically target the human player and its penchant for expansion and territorial blocks.

Gotta disagree with you here, mate. Maybe only expansionist AI personalities, Genghis Khan, Alexander or Augustus should do it. If Gandhi suddenly covets my land too, what's the point of having Gandhi, a pacifist, represented in the game? Maybe once in a blue moon, Gandhi would desire to expand towards claimed territory.

Even if I have Alexander, Augustus and Khan in my game, they shouldn't all be coveting my lands either, or else it'll just be war, war, war. As if Civ 5 isn't oriented towards warmongering enough.

 

[Txurce]

Post patch is definitely an.....*improvement*, but from my experiences so far it still has a fair way to go. I'd like to see them bring back Pacts of Co-Operation & Pacts of Secrecy, alongside the current Denouncements & Friendship Declarations. I also want to see a future patch deal with ongoing graphics issues-like the look of cities & rivers. I'll need to play a bit more, though, to see just how much better the game is, but its nice not having to play with about a dozen mods in play-just to make the experience enjoyable.

Aussie.

I think the PoS and PoC are basically equivalents for Denouncements and Declarations, particularly the latter. It seems that only the Ai can pledge to protect, however, or ask someone else to denounce.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the PoS and PoC are basically equivalents for Denouncements and Declarations, particularly the latter. It seems that only the Ai can pledge to protect, however, or ask someone else to denounce.

I don't see them as true equivalents, though. A Pact of Secrecy is-as its name suggests-SECRET, whereas denouncements are very public. A Pact of Co-operation is more than mere friendship IMO-it is an agreement to help each-other when the need arises. I believe this to be sufficiently different from Friendship to have it retained in Diplomacy (I believe more options are better than less). I'm also disappointed to hear that we might have lost the ability to pledge to protect City-States. This seems like a step *backwards* IMHO.

Aussie.

 

[Buccaneer]

Gotta disagree with you here, mate. Maybe only expansionist AI personalities, Genghis Khan, Alexander or Augustus should do it. If Gandhi suddenly covets my land too, what's the point of having Gandhi, a pacifist, represented in the game? Maybe once in a blue moon, Gandhi would desire to expand towards claimed territory.

Even if I have Alexander, Augustus and Khan in my game, they shouldn't all be coveting my lands either, or else it'll just be war, war, war. As if Civ 5 isn't oriented towards warmongering enough.

I strongly believe that no AI civs should have predictable "traits" or "tendencies". Predictability of how an AI would act in a game like this would be foolish and unplayable, imo, since that would be yet another advantage a human player would have over the AI. Each AI, regardless of what they are called, should take stock of the geopolitical situation it find itself in and play accordingly...in order to beat the other AI civs and of course to make it tougher for the human player to win. If any AI, I don't care what color they are, finds itself in position to destroy another player (esp. in this military-centric game), then it should do so aggressively. Same thing for a civ, regardless of color, that finds itself in a great production spot to take advantage and race ahead to win in other ways.

 

[Shadow717]

I also want to see a future patch deal with ongoing graphics issues-like the look of cities & rivers.

In the game I started after the patch there is a river segment at least 8 tiles long, maybe more, that is completely invisible. The terrain is just marshland, grassland, or hills unless you look in strategic view.

 

[blind biker]

I really think there should come a patch which ruduces the speed of which this message pops up: 'They convet land that you currently own'.

I also vote to correct the spelling of that message!!!

Moderator Action: We don't allow any grammar nazism here.

 

[aziantuntija]

The patch is great! Not perfect but great, the game is much more enjoyable now.

Unfortunately there seems to be one huge problem at least in my game, it crashes. I cant get past turn 1,202 (if i remember correctly the turn number), music stops playing and the game just freezes a bit after i have pressed the next turn button. Im playing standard map size with 19 civs (no extra room for anyone ) and marathon speed. My system is Core 2 Quad Q9450, GTX470 and 4 Gigs of RAM, so it should be- and it IS enough.

 

[FlyingDutchman7]

Exactly. Not only should the AI covet your and everyone else's lands, but it should specifically target the human player and its penchant for expansion and territorial blocks.

So basically you think every AI (maybe except for Gandhi) should covet your land? What's the point of that message then?

I think the AI shouldn't specifically target the human player: I think they should be part of the game just like you are. There shouldn't be any difference between you and the other civs, just because you're a human. I think it should be like they are real humans too, who won't pick on one person because he's kind of more human.

I just think that in my case Rome should first go to war with Germany to convet my land. The game now feels to me like everyone can declare war on you just because you're in the game, not because you're next to them.

 

[Islet]

Each AI, regardless of what they are called, should take stock of the geopolitical situation it find itself in and play accordingly...in order to beat the other AI civs and of course to make it tougher for the human player to win.

Basically, this reduces AI to mere difficulty levels rather than flavor and personality. So in such a case, if my game difficulty is Settler, all AI would be cowardly and reserved while if I'm playing on Immortal, AI would be a war machine.

In this case, what are civilizations and their respective leaders portrayed for? Presentation purposes? Making Civ 5 look like a Civ game just for sales? If Switzerland were included in the DLC, would you prefer to see it expand and conquer like Genghis Khan in every game? Or would you like some historical flavor? e.g. Less of expansion and more of defense/economy/culture in later eras?

esp. in this military-centric game

Therein lies the problem with Civ 5. It is a war game with buildings/tech progression thrown in. Not an inherently bad concept if done well (Empire Earth series). But if you're selling me Civ 5. I want it to retain elements of the Civ-series found from Civ I-IV.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Also allying seems easy and without much consequences. I easily became friends with several nations without any consequences except for the Roman one (who's still friendly anyway). I have no enemies, experienced no aggression and my friends never asked me, for example to denounce their enemies (which I'd expect them to want but no? ) or anything for that matter, except for an occasional free-be luxury from time to time.

I take that back...

Spoiler :

The patch is great! Not perfect but great, the game is much more enjoyable now.

Unfortunately there seems to be one huge problem at least in my game, it crashes. I cant get past turn 1,202 (if i remember correctly the turn number), music stops playing and the game just freezes a bit after i have pressed the next turn button. Im playing standard map size with 19 civs (no extra room for anyone ) and marathon speed. My system is Core 2 Quad Q9450, GTX470 and 4 Gigs of RAM, so it should be- and it IS enough.

Agree, patch is an improvement. I actually enjoy the game now. The game is much more engaging now. It actually reminds me of Civ4 now when it comes to global politics. The prove I have of that is that just like in Civ4, I managed to get everyone to hate me by the modern era... Being the diplomat I am.

Don't have any crashing problems. You updated your drivers?

Anyway marathon!? Wow...

I think the AI shouldn't specifically target the human player: I think they should be part of the game just like you are. There shouldn't be any difference between you and the other civs, just because you're a human. I think it should be like they are real humans too, who won't pick on one person because he's kind of more human.

1 picture is worth more than a thousand words... or something like that.

Spoiler :

I just think that in my case Rome should first go to war with Germany to convet my land. The game now feels to me like everyone can declare war on you just because you're in the game, not because you're next to them.

To people having a problem with the whole coveting system:

I don't see there to be any problems with coveting. In my game (the pic above) I never experienced any aggression until the modern era (when I screwed everything up). A handful of neighbors coveted my lands. Genghis lusted for them since I met him (isn't that what you'd expect him to do?) and there were moments when my close neighbors coveted them for a brief period during small cool downs in our relationships, but it always passed. And honestly I don't see how basically landlocked by me, Washington wouldn't covet my lands. Yet still he only showed that desire once, for a very brief period.

So I don't see what's the problem is. Claim that they only attack you and you only, because you're human is false. Again see the pic above. In that game there were backstabbing and wars all over the place... which NEVER TOUCHED ME (until the modern era)! I avoided them by never trying to piss off anyone and allying myself with a nice 4 buddies circle who all liked each other.

You want only for certain AI's to want your lands? Basically saying I don't want to ever be challenged militarily? I have to remind you, that isn't how it was in civ4 either. There were more aggressive leaders than others, just like in Civ5, but in the end they would all attack you when the time comes, unless you're friendly with them (which also happens here until you start winning the game).

 

[FlyingDutchman7]

SickFak, you understood my post wrongly:
From Buccaneer's post I could derive that he thinks that the AI should be more aggressive to human players than to anyone else. I think that they should be equal, just like in your pic
I indeed think that your neighbours should covet your lands, but to stay at your pic: Suleiman shouldn't covet your lands IMO.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Alright so I finished my first game of Civ5. I say "my first" because I really want to forget what I played pre-patch.

This is how it should have been on release. As I posted before, the game was quite engaging from the start. Things happened. Diplomacy is now fun and it works. It needs more polishing sure, but it works. I saw AI's gang up on other AI's. Friendship blocks, that kinda replaces the old religion blocks. Though not permanently locked as religious blocks often were, which is a good thing. As I said, things happened.

The end game was unexpectedly interesting and what happened there wouldn't have happened pre-patch. AI seems to be indeed more capable.

I decided to go for a science victory in the end, because it was my only option. 4 other AI's decided to go for it too. So when I completed the Apollo project, I could kiss our friendship goodbye. The race had started. There was no doubt now that the French, the fifth giant AI who were going for domination victory, would now come for me. So I quickly annexed America and turtled in.

And so they came. Their troops were outnumbering mine 4:1. Good thing fascism allowed me to have a bigger army. Otherwise it would be 8:1. Sadly I could hold their attacks on the front line quite easily. Not as easy as pre-patch, but easy still.

After some time I guess Napoleon realized that domination isn't an option, so he went for an alternative - diplo victory. By that point 3 other AI's have completed the Apollo project, not sure how many SS parts they completed.

The first diplo vote, Napoleon got 6 votes out of 11 needed. By the time I was 6 or so turns away from the last SS part, he almost won, getting 10 votes!

Spoiler :

When that failed, as the last resort he nuked me...

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Why didn't he nuke the front line is beyond me...

Spoiler :

And victory...

Spoiler :

Now the sad part... ready for it? When I decided to go for the science victory, I was an era behind the top 3 civs.

 

[Buccaneer]

Basically, this reduces AI to mere difficulty levels rather than flavor and personality. So in such a case, if my game difficulty is Settler, all AI would be cowardly and reserved while if I'm playing on Immortal, AI would be a war machine.

In this case, what are civilizations and their respective leaders portrayed for? Presentation purposes? Making Civ 5 look like a Civ game just for sales? If Switzerland were included in the DLC, would you prefer to see it expand and conquer like Genghis Khan in every game? Or would you like some historical flavor? e.g. Less of expansion and more of defense/economy/culture in later eras?

Presentation purposes? Primarily, yes. But there are different styles of play an AI can engage in during a game, as well as being able to switch within a game depending on the situation. If a civ is hemmed in on a pangaea, then it must be able to ramp up to a war footing and fight their way out. On the other hand, if a civ has lots of room to expand, then it should take advantage of that situation and ramp up population and research, and maybe production. I do not - under any circumstances - want to know ahead of time what a civ will do or know how it will act. That absolutely does not belong in the game (e.g., Gandhi must always act like a pacifist). There should be a variety of ways a civ can act during a game but how must be flexible, fluid and quite unpredictable.

Therein lies the problem with Civ 5. It is a war game with buildings/tech progression thrown in. Not an inherently bad concept if done well (Empire Earth series). But if you're selling me Civ 5. I want it to retain elements of the Civ-series found from Civ I-IV.

So was Civ4. 95% of the Civ4 games I played for five years were military-centric. One had to force yourself to hold back on conquests, just like in Civ5.

 

[Buccaneer]

If Switzerland were included in the DLC, would you prefer to see it expand and conquer like Genghis Khan in every game?

Addendum: What in the world does that have to do with a civilization game??? If you want Switzerland to be neutral and Mongold to be conquerers, that would be ideal for a scenario (which I play). Things like should not belong in a regular game.