Should I give Civ 5 another chance?

[krait23]

I am one of those people who were seriously disappointed by Civ 5 on release, and when the first few patches didn't bring any fundamental changes, I never touched it again.
Atm I feel a desire to play Civilization again, and wonder whether I should go with the tried and true Civ 4 or try Civ 5 again after a year of evolution.

I am more of a builder than a warmonger. What really put me off with Civ5 was that city placement really didn't matter anymore because resource bonuses were so small, you could just plop down cities all over and not have any penalty for it. Buildings and wonders didn't have big enough effects for me. I missed rushing and found it rather very stupid that you could insta-buy at the start, but not rush later...
Didn't like the random city-expansion either. And then there was the ultra-stupid AI.

Have these things been changed? Especially the part about importance of resources as city-boosters. Putting my cities into optimal places and watching them prosper from it, snatching that one great spot from the AI and thus making my day and ruining his, that is the most fun in Civ for me. And the Civ5 I saw after release had none of that at all.

 

[Misterboy]

It's gotten better. If you play tall empires, city placement is important. If you play wide, or ICS, then not so much.

You should probably give it another go, just to see. But my guess is you are too attached to a perception of what Civ "should be" and won't be impressed with Civ 5. Every problem you mentioned has been addressed, though there is still progress to be made.

Whatever you decide, have fun!

 

[Optional]

There seem to be a lot of Civ 4 players who simply don't like Civ 5. I was a Civ III player who never took to Civ 4, maybe it's the same thing.

It certainly matters where you place your cities in Civ 5. One thing that has changed is that the minimum distance between cities is now 4 tiles instead of 3, making placement more particular. Also a new resource has been added, Stone, for extra hammers mainly.
There is a difference between places where it comes to gold, food or production gain, although I think that must have been the case already when you first tried the game.

The improvements through patches have been substantial, you will probably appreciate the changes, most people do. Whether it's enough for you to play Civ 5 rather than Civ 4 is hard to say.

 

[kaltorak]

Yes, it got better. Specially the part about placing the city in a good spot and resources beeing more important. I hated that too at start, but they became much better now. Placing lots of cities anywhere is not how you play anymore. Resources gained importance, and there are also lots of buildings which improve resource tile gains.

 

[dexters]

There seem to be a lot of Civ 4 players who simply don't like Civ 5. I was a Civ III player who never took to Civ 4, maybe it's the same thing.

It certainly matters where you place your cities in Civ 5. One thing that has changed is that the minimum distance between cities is now 4 tiles instead of 3, making placement more particular. Also a new resource has been added, Stone, for extra hammers mainly.
There is a difference between places where it comes to gold, food or production gain, although I think that must have been the case already when you first tried the game.

The improvements through patches have been substantial, you will probably appreciate the changes, most people do. Whether it's enough for you to play Civ 5 rather than Civ 4 is hard to say.

If Civ4 was Civ3 improved in terms of its gameplay mechanics.
Civ5 is Civ3 improved conceptually.

I found that although Civ4 played tightly and had a lot of mechanics improved from Civ3, it regressed a lot conceptually to either close exploits and as part of the push by 2K to gain more users.

Civ5 brings back the concepts started in Civ3 and takes them further. City States is interesting, albeit, as I've said many times, there is work to be done and I hope it's something they improve in a future expansion.

I've also come to enjoy/appreciate 1UP. It's something I hope they improve on. And with a faster class of computers for Civ6, I think this is a problem they can solve with brute force computing.

 

[markusbeutel]

I am one of those people who were seriously disappointed by Civ 5 on release, and when the first few patches didn't bring any fundamental changes, I never touched it again.
Atm I feel a desire to play Civilization again, and wonder whether I should go with the tried and true Civ 4 or try Civ 5 again after a year of evolution.

I am more of a builder than a warmonger. What really put me off with Civ5 was that city placement really didn't matter anymore because resource bonuses were so small, you could just plop down cities all over and not have any penalty for it. Buildings and wonders didn't have big enough effects for me. I missed rushing and found it rather very stupid that you could insta-buy at the start, but not rush later...
Didn't like the random city-expansion either. And then there was the ultra-stupid AI.

Have these things been changed? Especially the part about importance of resources as city-boosters. Putting my cities into optimal places and watching them prosper from it, snatching that one great spot from the AI and thus making my day and ruining his, that is the most fun in Civ for me. And the Civ5 I saw after release had none of that at all.

Resource improvement bonuses are still small, (+1 or sometimes nothing at all to distinguish them from improvements on terrain without resources), but that's because the main bonus for the resource is given without actually having to improve the tile in the first place. After significant patching, CIV V functions a little bit differently now in that buildings also grant these resources additional bonuses, and this puts a little more emphasis back into the builder side of the game.

City expansion still isn't as quick as in CIV IV, because if the AI rolls a victory type like culture, (they're playing to win after all), it will focus on establishing a tall empire - so there's a little bit less emphasis on running out and grabbing swathes of land before anyone else - (but this is still important, as some AI do play this way - ie Russia).

All in all it's a different game - not necessarily better or worse, just different.

 

[Stormbolt]

It's been patched quite a bit since release. I'd definitely give it a second shot.

 

[glider1]

I've played the entire civ series except for Civ1. I could never play Civ4 without modding it somehow to make it more interesting. With Civ5 post latest patch, I can actually play it with only the unofficial patch and VEM mod and really enjoy it as it is. City placement strategies are clearly better than in previous civ releases in my personal opinion. The tile buying and culture expansion model is superb.

Here are my own reservations:
-> although the tactical AI is much better than I expected, it needs some work
-> city states are a great idea but need more work to make them more dynamic
-> I'm dubious that 1UPT can be kept as rigidly defined as it is at the moment
-> needs a really well thought out religion, espionage and corporation concept
-> could do with a really well thought out revolutions concept as a mod

Enjoy Civ5, it certainly is a remarkable game in every respect after the latest patch and personally I think it deserves to stand among the greatest in the Civ series, having as much impact on me as Civ2 did. I'd say definitely give it another shot unreservedly.

Cheers

 

[pspboy7]

I've played Civ 5 since it's release, I like it, but it has it's quirks. Giving up on the game entirely is probably a bad idea for me since the game still has alot of potential. You have to remember that any game franchise will lose or gain acceptance based upon the expectations of it's community. Really the only thing that really lacks in Civ 5 is the ability of the AI to relate to other AI in the game and the player, in other words DIPLOMACY!!! Diplomacy in Civ 5 is drastically flawed in comparison to Civ 4 since the AI acts out of the sole purpose to dominate through war in the game rather than trade or offer diplomatic incentives. Of course, to fix that Firaxis will have to redesign the entire engine to do so.

 

[LegionSteve]

Like the OP I was disappointed with the original release but Civ 5 has improved a lot since then. There is still a lot of room for further improvement in a lot of areas, but I can enjoy the game as it is now. All my biggest gripes now are about the user interface rather than the gameplay.

This may be controversial but I even like the diplomacy now
There are lots of ways to piss the AIs off, and not so many ways to keep them friendly. They will take notice of what you are doing, and you have to think about that. I prefer this to the Civ 4 way 'do whatever you like as long as you have the right religion/civics to keep your friends friendly.'

So if you try it again you may like it now, or you may not. But I would say its definitely worth a try.

 

[headcase]

I used to hate it, now I really like it. But it's not a role-playing game, it's a competition. Competition doesn't mean you have to be a warmonger, but in some cases going to war is the most effective option.

Unlike Civ4, you cannot afford to have a weak army. Well, unless you play Archipelago maybe, since the AI isn't very good in the sea. But even then you need to defend.

If you don't want to be a warmonger, I'd suggest picking up the Order SP (social policy) when you can, and following that up with Nationalism, which gives your units a 25% boost in friendly territory. Order is for empires with lots of cities, but still worth picking up for that defense bonus imo.

It takes a while to get a feel for too, so I would start on Warlord or less. Then again, you might learn your lessons faster on a higher difficulty, so whatever floats your boat.

 

[Cilpot]

My relationship with Civ 5 has been a bit schizophrenic: Love -> Hate -> Ignore -> Kinda Like.

Now I kinda like it. Especially with Thal's mod.

 

[bcaiko]

you could just plop down cities all over and not have any penalty for it.

This in particular has changed in the latest patch. There are harsh penalties to your happiness, culture, and ability to get Golden Ages if you start plopping down cities indiscriminately. In order to play a wide empire, you have to have certain policies, at least. (Or be the AI. haha)