RFC players' first impression of Civ 5

[AnotherPacifist]

1. Boring!
2. Clunky graphics
3. Unwieldy implementation of war (maintenance costs are too high, units take forever to build)
4. bad adaptation of the "large empire" stability problems. Can't really get happiness resources high enough with small empire but maintenance/happiness is bad for large empires
5. Cannot deficit spend for more science
6. New definition of culture is novel, but not very intuitive (instead of expanding territory via culture you have to "buy" land)
7. Tech is too slow (I still have Greek hoplites attacking me in 1700).

Sigh, why didn't they hire Rhye?

 

[Cetrix]

Sigh, why didn't they hire Rhye?

Well, this is the best idea i've ever heard this year !

 

[KMRblue1027]

And someone who actually know what they are talking about gives a review. Even more reason not to get the game (At least wait for one or two expansions.) I still want 2K to cough up the Civ4 source code so someone can make a multi-threaded .exe.

 

[civ_king]

And someone who actually know what they are talking about gives a review. Even more reason not to get the game (At least wait for one or two expansions.) I still want 2K to cough up the Civ4 source code so someone can make a multi-threaded .exe.

They can't do that legally

 

[LuKo]

If 2K would release the source code- then why not?

 

[Rhye]

I've tried it.
I strongly suggest everyone to wait at least a couple of months before buying.
It has the potential, but it's still raw and incredibly slow. And no modding tools for now. Can't even reveal the map.

 

[TDK]

And if you buy it, make sure you don't pay 80$ dollars for it.

I bought it on Direct2Drive and it's easy and cheap. Just be sure to choose UK in the top right corner and you will get it for 29.95£(=46,92$).

I'm NOT in the UK myself btw.

 

[-Perceval-]

Absolutely agree with Rhye, wait just two mont before buying. I bought it and i regret, here the reasons:

-The graphism are just...out of time, the most incredible thing is that there are no cultural diversity between civ, ex: the songhai warriors are the same than the french ones... All the unit look like european units except unique units. For the cities, there are only 4 different styles. Hope they will be able to improve them just a little bit.

-The diplomacy is...i don't know we can't see if one civ like the other or not, evrything is hidden, you don't know why a civ hate or love you. We need a bug mod here!!!! Or at least a good patch!

-The AI are stupid....Yes very! PATCH PLEASE

-There are no scenario, no campaign, no mod, NOTHING, just play the game or personnalize game.

-The game is a little bit...slow.

-The civics are not civics, juste a level tree like in diablo or other hack and lash. You can be fascist and communist if you want, no problem, in all case it don't affect the diplomatic relation at all.

The good points:
-Combat system, very more strategic than before
-City states: i just like it even if a lot of player don't like them and that some thing need to be...corrected.
And...that's all, ah no, it's well optimized too(ok i got a quad core but i can put graphics to the maximum and there are absolutely no lag and after all my computer is 2,5 years old so...).


But to adpt RFC to this, i just don't know how it will be possible for now. I think that we must wait a little bit...

 

[Úmarth]

I'm enjoying it. It has some teething problems, but nothing a patch or two won't fix. I've certainly seen less polished games on release day go on to be great (coughparadoxcough).

...I'm still counting down the days to RFC5 v0.01 though.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I actually got the Earth map and it's more playable.
Very stupid of the rule that no 2 units can occupy the same tiles...even workers are included. So basically you can't speed up improvements. Who says civilians can't coexist with each other or with military?
Workers are much more expensive, but cities grow when you're making them.

I do like the fact that you can buy things in your production queues early on, just like you buy land. Whipping is gone though.

 

[Tlönitte]

It seems stupid you can bottleneck your opponents by opening borders, then filling their land with scouts/workers. An option to politely ask your ally to get out of the way would not be amiss.

I like the way that the culture cost increases with amount of cities, very Rhye.

 

[KMRblue1027]

They should have gone with a Civ2 style staking system rather then no staking at all.

They can't do that legally

People have already made plenty of Civ2 custom .exe's without a source code. And they are on Civfanatics so they aren't illegal.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205794

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

I've tried it.
I strongly suggest everyone to wait at least a couple of months before buying.
It has the potential, but it's still raw and incredibly slow. And no modding tools for now. Can't even reveal the map.

I won't buy it for a while. And by a while, I mean possibly ever if 2k and Firaxis are feeling lazy.

 

[killerkebab]

The good:
- Hex tiles. I really like this.
- Area of control. Again, adds a new layer to the strategy.
- Combat. Same as Area of control, the combat seems nicer. City combat especially.
- Tile purchasing. I'm sure a mod might end up incorporating things like land trading which would be interesting.
- Animated leaders. Probably not "necessary" as such, but a very nice addition, how they all speak in their native languages and whatnot.
- Having large empires isn't super easy like in Civ IV. As culture costs increase and happiness decreases (so less golden ages) having a small empire is sometimes recommended.


The bad:
- No tools? Can't reveal the map, can't edit things like we used to? I just wanted to see what the earth map looks like
- 1 unit of either type on each tile (I managed 1 worker and 1 soldier, but I can't have 2 soldiers or 2 workers)
- The equivalent of the cottage improvement doesn't evolve over time, meaning there is no real benefit to planning one's infrastructure early.
- Civics are gone, and in their place one buys social policies with culture. An interesting idea that I just cannot get my head around for the moment.
- Happiness is empire-wide. No more individual cities being unhappy. This doesn't feel right, either.
- I can't find where to rename cities. This is probably my fault, however.
- No tech trading? This is ridiculous in my opinion. The alternative that the game offers (entering research pacts with other civilizations for money) is not up to the job imo

The undecided:
- Strategic resources are limited. One supply of iron on the map will only allow you to build two swordsmen, for instance. It is then up to you to find more iron if you want more swordsmen. If you were to lose the iron resource, your swordsmen now only deal 50% damage (or 75%, I can't remember). It is obviously annoying when you first see it happen to you, but a part of me says this is a good idea in the long run and will force the player to think about his armies and protecting all of his resources, not just a single one of each type.
- War is difficult and sometimes annoying. The military aspect is nice and I have to think a lot more about my unit movement (which you might say isn't what civ is supposed to be about, but we're talking strategic placement, not tactics I guess). However taking enemy lands gives you a choice. Take the city or have a puppet state. Unless I'm being really stupid, I almost never see the point of taking cities directly.
Turning the city into a puppet state essentially gives you access to everything it produces including resources, gold, science and the like, but you can't decide what the city builds. I'm not sure what to make of it. Following on the small empires idea, puppet states don't add to your "number of cities penalties", and add a lot less unhappiness than occupying the city would. However, you still have to defend them.
Other than the fact the player has no control over what the puppet state does exactly, puppet state cities have exactly the same appearance on the map as the player's own.

On a side note, city states:
These offer really interesting potential. Imagine the independents in RFC, but you can "talk" to them (the diplomacy is limited to giving them gifts or declaring war) and occasionally a city state will broadcast a message for help - they might ask you to attack one of their rival city-states, acquire some resource, build some wonder of the world in one of your cities (which their scholars can visit and admire how mighty you are) or some other task. Completing these tasks (or failing that, giving them money) makes them more friendly or even allied to you (happens automatically if they like you enough). Allied city states will help you in whatever wars you end up in by sending troops, and any resources that they hook up to their city are automatically traded to you. Depending on your "civics" options, city states can even give you a proportion of their gold or science production. An interesting idea for modders imo, especially if they can "influence" how the city states act towards certain players and also influence what "challenges" the city states give out. These "challenges" are the closest thing the game has to quests.

 

[Úmarth]

The limitations of a puppet city are obvious, aren't they? You can't specialise it on one thing, you can't micro it for efficiency, you can't use it to build wonders, you can't use it to build a military, the list goes on. I only make puppets when it's a poor city that I probably wouldn't manage anyway. But in that sense I think it's a really cool alternative to razing a city which, when you think about it, was quite unrealistic.

 

[killerkebab]

The limitations of a puppet city are obvious, aren't they? You can't specialise it on one thing, you can't micro it for efficiency, you can't use it to build wonders, you can't use it to build a military, the list goes on. I only make puppets when it's a poor city that I probably wouldn't manage anyway. But in that sense I think it's a really cool alternative to razing a city which, when you think about it, was quite unrealistic.

I guess I'm just annoyed because in the one game I've played so far, the civ I ended up destroying declared war on ME and I went down to teach them a lesson only to find their cities sucked and I couldn't afford to keep them -> hence semi-useless puppet states which are still a slight drain on happiness if I recall correctly.

As for micro for efficiency, almost every aspect of city micro is gone. No more health, happiness, science/culture/esp sliders or evolving cottages to deal with

 

[Sikandar]

It bothers me that the AI is fond of building cities scattered all over the world. It would make more sense to me for AI players to build their cities closer together so as to have an actual empire.

 

[civ_king]

They should have gone with a Civ2 style staking system rather then no staking at all.



People have already made plenty of Civ2 custom .exe's without a source code. And they are on Civfanatics so they aren't illegal.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205794

Civ IV uses the Gamebryo engine so they can't legally do that

 

[Mxzs]

I just got CiV yesterday and have played thru two half-games. (I'm being very slow, and am trying to experiment so as to learn it.) But my first impressions are similar to AP's. I particularly agree that the graphics are off-putting. I think they are extremely cluttered, and at the very least a patch needs a toggle so you can get a map view that turns city banners and units invisible.

I haven't played it enough to really have well-thought criticisms, but I am curious to know if RFC fanatics have reactions similar to mine on one issue.

So, I was playing on an Earth-like map. I attacked a city that was more or less where Paris would be. Because of the 1upt rule (and thanks to the 2-tile bombardment range) I had a short line of melee units in front it, and an archer behind, to the south. I bombarded Paris; and then along came a galley that hit my archer from the alt-Mediterranean.

And I'm left thinking that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. So ... I have magical archers who can hit Paris while sitting on the slopes of the Alps? And they in turn are vulnerable to a ship cruising just off the coast of Rome? Say what you will about stacks of doom (and I see lots of people running around now arguing that SoD were the worst thing ever invented, and that they always hated them), but when an SoD pulled up next to a city, I knew that was a gameplay representation of a battle that took place in a space that would have been far, far smaller than a pixel. I did not look at units and see warriors who were 200 miles tall walking across a landscape; I could easily reinterpret them as representations of real people down in that landscape. That's one of the things I really liked about the Civ games: you really could view them as a sweeping historical pageant and not just as "chess with lots of funny rules."

But battles like the above ... I can't reinterpret them them to make them realistic. For some reason, according to CiV, it is impossible in its world for a company of 2000 archers and 2000 swordsmen to get within about 400 miles of each other. And soldiers who are 400 miles away from the coast and sitting 5000 feet above sea level can be hit by archers who never get out of their boats and get their feet wet.

Now, everyone is busy defending this as "tactical gameplay," and I see the point. I am sympathetic. But as I said, one reason I really liked the Civ franchise (and why I so adore RFC) is because it wasn't just game play. It gave the illusion of semi-realistic history playing out under your eyes. And the 1upt thing pitches me out of that illusion completely, because it insists on treating armies--groups of human beings--as tactical pieces that can only be related to each other geometrically. That's not an abstraction or a idealization (like all games have to do); IMO that's a fundamental misrepresentation that renders the game "false" in feeling.

Put it this way: I look at the map in CiV, and I don't see a "world" any more. I only see a game board. I don't see armies and cities and landscapes; I only see chess pieces and colored tiles. Even CivI, with its abstract, squiggly backgrounds and mahjong tiles skittering across the screen, felt more "real" than CiV. This is a shame, because the hex shapes and the tile-by-tile spread of culture actually make it "look" far more organic and realistic than any of its predecessors.

I haven't seen anyone else say this or make this point. Am I just crazy for thinking that a game like Civ should present a certain kind of illusion, and that it shouldn't do things that shatter that illusion?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I could say some very nice things about it. For instance, I love the new "embarkation" mechanic, though it needs a patch too, to make escorting work. But since this is the RFC forum, I just wanted to throw out a comment that ... okay, isn't RFC-related, but I'd say it's RFC-pertinent, since one thing we all love about RFC is its attention to accurate simulation and devotion to verisimilitude. And that's what I'm feeling CiV lacks.

 

[Ogrelord]

This is only first impressions since I only played the demo. However my friend got the game ( thus me not hearing from him for days... ) and I plan to play a whole game at his place soon.
First thing first, I like all the new changes, it has a lot of potential. I'll tell you what from a RFC point of view I like and dislike of ciV but only the aspect I'm sure of.


the Civilizations with their UA instead of the leaders special bonus.

• The good: I like this. This gives more of a "national" identity to the Civs. They're all pretty good, depending how a player utilized them.
  
  
• The bad: I don't feel they have enough punch. OFC i don't notice it in just 100 turns. Maybe during an entire game, is where the UA shines.
  
  
• The ugly: What if each ciV had 2 or 3 UA and the player get to choose which one he wants at the start. Maybe you can "purchase" a 2nd UA with large combo of coins, culture, and beakers. OR if you accomplished 2 of your 4 UHV. which brings me to the next point...

Unique Historical Victories

I feel like I have no directions with the lack of UHVs. Sure you have city-state quests but they're all the same no matter who you play as. It's expand, expand. Secure route, happiness (luxury resources) and culture boost for the tiles.

• The good: I love this concept of city-states, it represents how large nation states spread their sphere of influence. City-states give you some sort of goal.. but they lack personalities.. to me Venice is no different from Warsaw. I wish each city-states have more of their own uniqueness so to say.. like in RFC, Jerusalem was Jerusalem, you know it's important.
  
  
• The bad: City-states feel like they're like road bumps for your Civs to not expand too fast. If you're Greece and "one of your UHV is too have 3 or more city-states allies to you", then that some sort of objective you can plan to achieve mid-game, and always one more turn.
  
  
• The ugly: With 5 different victory types, and the same quests from different city-states ( please help me get rid of those barbs, destroy rival, etc..). The game feels bland and each civ are just different spices to add taste. But what if a quest is specific to a city-state quasi-historically. Umm, by reading on Tyre on Wiki, something about dyes. So instead of blah blah build a road from your capital to Tyre, you have something specific that has to do with dyes resources.

Finally, Firaxis is too keen on a HAPPY civilization... Civilizations to me is umm.. the RISE and FALL .. that are interesting to me. I have this book here by Jared Diamond.. it's called Collapse. How can you not have a Civ collapsing.. yet somehow you manage to survive and even prosper after your "dark ages". Thus, you get no bad things (not even ruins aka goody huts), no hard decisions.