Plan of patches?

[phoinix]

Hello all
I haven't yet played CiV because of all the critique it received by hardcore fans. I'm currently still playing Civ IV with the latest Better BAT AI goodness. My question is this: Do we know or have a rough idea what the upcoming patches are supposed to fix? Diplomacy? Tactical warfare? I don't want to jump in the new game just yet as I don't have much time to learn Civ all over again... If CiV got on par with Civ 4 + better AI I would consider it. Thanks

 

[The Judgemental]

I don't really know what further patches would aim correct i sure their is more to refine still but i loved Civ III and Civ IV and i wouldn't say CiV is so different to learn that it would take so much time to adjust to.

Its fun playing and that why we play games anyway so have a crack i think you'll be okay

 

[jtb1127]

I'm kind of with you phoinix, I haven't played civ v in a few months because it kept dissatisfying me. I have been playing bts a lot. But, I spent $50 on ciV and I would hate to see that money go to waster. So, I am thinking about playing ciV again but I'm not sure how much the patches have improved.

 

[trueblue]

'i stopped playing Civ5'

'im still playing Civ4'

blah blah, yet more of this nonsense.

Civ4 was yesterday, stay there if you want.

or play Civ5 and stop posting here and find out for yourself. its simple really.

Moderator Action: Please contribute something to a thread, or else don't post. Such posts like this one here are considered spam.

 

[TPQ]

Hello all
I haven't yet played CiV because of all the critique it received by hardcore fans. I'm currently still playing Civ IV with the latest Better BAT AI goodness. My question is this: Do we know or have a rough idea what the upcoming patches are supposed to fix? Diplomacy? Tactical warfare? I don't want to jump in the new game just yet as I don't have much time to learn Civ all over again... If CiV got on par with Civ 4 + better AI I would consider it. Thanks

If you're still enjoying Civ4, I'd stick with it for the time-being.

The 332 patch was good, probably the best patch yet, but there are still many flaws to be worked out before the game will be truly finished and even then, there will no doubt be more DLC and probably an expansion or two.

You have to remember, Civ4, especially with BtS, was a very mature product and in comparison, Civ5 is still, in many ways, embryonic. It won't really be born until the bugs are all fixed and then it won't be able to stand up to Civ4 until at least one expansion pack.

As for the Civ5 AI. It could probably stand to be improved, especially in it's tactical use of 1upt, but I'm fairly sure the Civ5 AI, at it's heart, is a different beast from the Civ4 AI. In some ways, it's unfair to compare the two, as they were conceived to play (arguably) different games, with different objectives and different constraints. I doubt the Civ4 AI would cope any better if thrown into Civ5 than the Civ5 AI does, probably worse.

If you're still getting pleasure from Civ4 and like the way it works, you might want to consider sticking with it until Civ5 is more mature; say, another year, to 18 months.

It might be fair to say that Civ5 is a branch, or offshoot, rather than a true successor to Civ4, at this stage at least. You really have to treat Civ5 on it's own merits, rather than trying to think of it the context of Civ4, or even earlier Civ games.

If you want to give Civ5 a whirl now and are prepared to play it with an open mind and just enjoy it for what it is at this stage, then you may well find that, after you've got used to it, you find it quite enjoyable.

 

[Brichals]

It's hard to answer if you have never played Civ 5. Patches have increased turn speed, balanced out some exploits which were imbalanced, and added a bit of flavour in new buildings etc. The game has been pretty good since the last couple of patches imo, with the latest one really good. Diplomacy is not as dumb as people make it out to be and AI isn't that stupid at all.

But the basis of a truly stunning game are there. If it got 2 expansions worth of content added like BTS then really there is no comparison. Civ5 will be so much better.

 

[HalloweenWeed]

They have just patched the game again, more like major balancing changes than a patch! I liked the game better before. This game is not new, it is a year old! If you wait for any more patches, they may not come.

 

[seasnake]

I think the game is currently a good buy, especially since you can get it for like 66% off. Combat is much more tactical in V, and the computer since the last patch seems to be better AI. Supposedly Multiplayer support and AI improvements are coming later this summer too, so I'm hopeful it will continue to evolve. As it is I already like it better than BTS, I tried to play a BTS game recently and I can't go back.

 

[apocalypse105]

You should ask yourself the question do i want a game that the a AI interacts with the player or a a game where the AI wants to win...

IF you want a AI that wants to win and want a war game civ 5 is ok

 

[phoinix]

You should ask yourself the question do i want a game that the a AI interacts with the player or a a game where the AI wants to win...

IF you want a AI that wants to win and want a war game civ 5 is ok

I always saw Civ as a "build an empire that will last through the centuries" kind of game, not just war. I value diplomacy as well (though I am a little warmonger, I tend to wage wars on AIs that block my expansion). I've read some posts here about the AI being oriented to win and thus making backstabbing and other sneaky tactics the norm, making up ridiculous excuses on the way. I don't like that... I would admire having AIs on somewhat good terms with each other, gang up against a leading civ, but I wouldn't like having to constantly fear that getting ahead would somehow trigger a World War just because the AIs won't come to terms with the fact that they had their chance and they missed it... They ought to assess how far away I am from victory, if I still have some way to go carefully plan alliances that would try to stop me from getting there but still, close friends shouldn't just backstab me like that... Because if they do there is no point really playing nice, I would just try to steamroll everyone from the start and never care for anything other than the domination/conquest victory...
And the devs have gotten it wrong if they think that we players play to win... I just play to enjoy myself, winning is just a bonus, a confirmation that all those plans and schemes and strategies of mine were indeed effective. I enjoy far more a tied game where I have to think my every next move than a game were I press enter just to get it over with

Bottom line: I'll wait some more months to see how things are going. If Firaxis stays committed and posts patches consistently or if they publish the code so that modders can start some serious work, I'm definitely going to give this game as many chances it needs to convince me. Otherwise I'll just try it out and if I don't like it it's on to Civ VI.

 

[spider1]

It's a year into the game now. For those that still don't like Civ V no patch or expansion will fix it for them, they will continue to dislike it. Because it's a part of the Civilization series of games, we'll continue to bicker about it in here. And these posts asking "Is Civ V been fixed yet?" by folks will continue to happen because it was so broken when it first came out. It's really no big deal, actually.

Civ V today is very much improved today from when it first came out. It's a wonderful game. But you know, that's just one person's opinion. I'm one of those that enjoyed the game from day 1 and played through all the obvious flaws and still do. There is no perfect Civ game of any flavor. All of them had flaws which we personally disliked for one reason or the other. There is stuff about Civ V I still dislike.

I guess my point is you are never going to please everyone no matter what you do. Each of us plays the game for a particular reason, and we play it differently with different options turned off/on. And you know, that's a good sign because it does show there are different ways to play the game and still have fun.

 

[kaltorak]

I always saw Civ as a "build an empire that will last through the centuries" kind of game, not just war. I value diplomacy as well (though I am a little warmonger, I tend to wage wars on AIs that block my expansion). I've read some posts here about the AI being oriented to win and thus making backstabbing and other sneaky tactics the norm, making up ridiculous excuses on the way. I don't like that... I would admire having AIs on somewhat good terms with each other, gang up against a leading civ, but I wouldn't like having to constantly fear that getting ahead would somehow trigger a World War just because the AIs won't come to terms with the fact that they had their chance and they missed it... They ought to assess how far away I am from victory, if I still have some way to go carefully plan alliances that would try to stop me from getting there but still, close friends shouldn't just backstab me like that... Because if they do there is no point really playing nice, I would just try to steamroll everyone from the start and never care for anything other than the domination/conquest victory...
And the devs have gotten it wrong if they think that we players play to win... I just play to enjoy myself, winning is just a bonus, a confirmation that all those plans and schemes and strategies of mine were indeed effective. I enjoy far more a tied game where I have to think my every next move than a game were I press enter just to get it over with

Totally agree. Wish devs would hear you

 

[Brichals]

I always saw Civ as a "build an empire that will last through the centuries" kind of game, not just war. I value diplomacy as well (though I am a little warmonger, I tend to wage wars on AIs that block my expansion). I've read some posts here about the AI being oriented to win and thus making backstabbing and other sneaky tactics the norm, making up ridiculous excuses on the way. I don't like that... I would admire having AIs on somewhat good terms with each other, gang up against a leading civ, but I wouldn't like having to constantly fear that getting ahead would somehow trigger a World War just because the AIs won't come to terms with the fact that they had their chance and they missed it... They ought to assess how far away I am from victory, if I still have some way to go carefully plan alliances that would try to stop me from getting there but still, close friends shouldn't just backstab me like that... Because if they do there is no point really playing nice, I would just try to steamroll everyone from the start and never care for anything other than the domination/conquest victory...
And the devs have gotten it wrong if they think that we players play to win... I just play to enjoy myself, winning is just a bonus, a confirmation that all those plans and schemes and strategies of mine were indeed effective. I enjoy far more a tied game where I have to think my every next move than a game were I press enter just to get it over with

Bottom line: I'll wait some more months to see how things are going. If Firaxis stays committed and posts patches consistently or if they publish the code so that modders can start some serious work, I'm definitely going to give this game as many chances it needs to convince me. Otherwise I'll just try it out and if I don't like it it's on to Civ VI.

I play the same way and for the same reasons and there is nothing wrong with Civ 5 in that regards. It's a bit unfair to blame the devs when you haven't even played. I remember in civ 4 and civ 3 just ticking down time when I had obviously won. It's not bad that other civs become less cooperative as you get closer to victory. And they don't backstab you unless you gave them reason to, normally they just become less willing to trade with you. People destroy city states and so on and wonder why the rest of the world are starting to secretly grow wary of them.

 

[kaltorak]

And they don't backstab you unless you gave them reason to, normally they just become less willing to trade with you.

Not in my experience.

-If you build wonders they hate you for building wonders.
-If you build settlers they hate you for expanding.
-If you go into a war they hate you for warmonger.
-If you dont build military they hate you for beeing weak.
-If you build military they hate you bc they are afraid of you.
-If you want to befriend city states, guess what....

Civ5 AIs are just playing a game of losing or winning, instead of beeing nation leaders.

 

[Montov]

Not in my experience.

-If you build wonders they hate you for building wonders.
-If you build settlers they hate you for expanding.
-If you go into a war they hate you for warmonger.
-If you dont build military they hate you for beeing weak.
-If you build military they hate you bc they are afraid of you.
-If you want to befriend city states, guess what....

Civ5 AIs are just playing a game of losing or winning, instead of beeing nation leaders.

Which is not negative. If the AI would do what you have listed here, I would be pissed at them too. And yeah, I too backstab the AI.

 

[kaltorak]

Which is not negative. If the AI would do what you have listed here, I would be pissed at them too. And yeah, I too backstab the AI.

Yes, in a deathmatch game like starcrtaft or panzer general. Not in a civilization game. Here you expect... well civilizations. Not one minded AIs jus caring about winning a game.

 

[Brichals]

Yes, in a deathmatch game like starcrtaft or panzer general. Not in a civilization game. Here you expect... well civilizations. Not one minded AIs jus caring about winning a game.

I got warrior rushed for the first time yesterday by Isabella which did in fact remind me very much of rush strategies in starcraft. It was quite exhilarating. I held it with losing worker time and getting improvements burned etc, but after losing 7 warriors Spain is basically out of the game from then. It's like the AI is using different strats/gambits better than ever.

Civ 5 is like a board game like monopoly to me. Everybody wants to get Mayfair. Thats what a Civ game should be in my eyes, but with history simulator aspects for fun and flavour.

 

[Johan de Witt]

Civ 5 is like a board game like monopoly to me. Everybody wants to get Mayfair. Thats what a Civ game should be in my eyes, but with history simulator aspects for fun and flavour.

Yes, in a deathmatch game like starcrtaft or panzer general. Not in a civilization game. Here you expect... well civilizations. Not one minded AIs jus caring about winning a game.

Welcome to the wonderful world of different opinions.

To the OP: The next patch was supposed to focus on multiplayer.

 

[kaltorak]

Welcome to the wonderful world of different opinions.

Indeed. The problem is when they change a long franchite of games that pleased you, to please the other type of players.

It's like what they are doing lately with lots of computer franchites. They make the new game more console like. Because lots of new gamers come from consoles and they like that type of games more. Well, different opinions are fine, but when they change what you liked and do something different, that's not cool anymore.

I tremble when I think what they are doing with elder scroll in skyrim. They already said officially it's going to focus on consoles. :_(

 

[Vladesch]

It would actually be ok if the AI was trying to win, but that's hardly the case.
I continually have to put up with the AI launching suicidal attacks against me which don't have any chance of succeeding, and then staying at war and making stupid demands instead of making trades and concentrating on it's economy.

As I've said in other threads, the best description of the AI is completely random.

The sad part is the devs don't even admit there's anything wrong. It's still a good game, but the "diplomacy" is just a joke.