1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Something that bugs me about Civ 5

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Redaxe, May 22, 2014.

  1. Redaxe

    Redaxe Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,519
    It annoys me how we have 3 ages (ancient-classical & medieval) that are supposed to cover 5000 years of history but we have 3 ages (modern, atomic, information) that cover approximately 120 years of history.

    I really think that in future Civ 6 (seeing as we won't see any more expansions or major patches) they need to slow the pace of technological advancement down a bit in the early ages. On higher difficulties its common to see AIs reaching the Medieval era about 800 BC & reaching the renaissance era around 500 AD. The AI typically get Civil Service by turn 70-80 and pikemen ruin game balance. A 16 strength unit that gets a +50% bonus against cavalry units well before Chivalry & Knights are accessible ruins many early game UUs.

    I really wish the developers had added an "extended Classical era" that lets you build units, buildings, wonders & get policies & religion at the standard speed but slows down technological research for the ancient, classical & medieval eras by about 50%.

    The way the game is designed now it takes about 50 turns just to get your Civilization up & running and now you're already nearly finished both of the ancient & classical eras without being able to so anything close to what the ancient Greeks & Romans did.

    Ancient Greece conquered much of the Mediterranean in a short space of time and built most of the classical era Wonders. The Romans were able to conquer the Greek World and expand to encompass nearly all of the Western World by 300 AD and had built the Circus Maximus & a host of infrastucture for many cities.
    My experience is that the closest I can get to doing this puts me well into the Medieval era as war just takes too much away from economic development.

    But I guess this is unlikely since there's no chance that a new expansion or major patches for Civ 5.
     
  2. tetley

    tetley Head tea leaf

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    Igloovik
    It bugs me that we can have the Ottomans and the Byzantines in the same game and their capitals are Istanbul and Constantinople, respectively. But I didn't get a whole lot of sympathy from this board. :p
     
  3. Loucypher

    Loucypher King

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    797
    To be fair, the idea of the eras is kinda preposterous anyway. They're mostly there for gameplay reasons (World congress, CS bonuses). Really, if you think about it, it's possible to enter the medieval era while having gotten only 2 Classical Era techs through beelining. I think the tech tree should intertwine a bit more, that would solve a fair bit.
     
  4. chazzycat

    chazzycat Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,897
    fully agree...the way great scientists speed through the end game, you don't really get to play with any of the late game stuff, unless you play non-ideally on purpose.
     
  5. Walter R

    Walter R Great Engineer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2013
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    England
    This - I think stealth should be a medieval tech!
    Joking aside, I have some sympathy with the OP on this; the early eras are a blur as I rush for Education. I also agree that the tech tree order could be improved, as I often have subs and privateers in the same fleet - and then sail past a CS with a destroyer a trireme and a galleas and WW1 infantry...
     
  6. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Yea civ games are pretty bad at replicating history
     
  7. Asklepios

    Asklepios Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    212
    I sympathise entirely.

    Would it help if we made a mod that included Turkey with Byzantium as its capital? :)
     
  8. Genghis Khaiser

    Genghis Khaiser Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    572
    Some technologies (especially those during the early and middle game) should be more expensive so it takes more time to reach them.

    I have an idea for eras (inspired partially by Rise of Nations and Empire Earth):

    EARLY GAME:
    1. Ancient Era (4000 BC - 3000 BC).
    And dividing the Classical Era in two:
    2. Bronze Era (3000 BC - 1500 BC).
    3. Iron Era (1500 BC - 400 AD).

    MIDDLE GAME:
    4. Medieval Era (400 AD - 1350 AD).
    Then divide the Renaissance Era in two:
    5. Renaissance Era (1350 AD - 1650 AD).
    6. Enlightenment Era (1650 AD - 1850 AD).

    LATE GAME:
    7. Industrial Era (1850 AD - 1900 AD).
    8. Modern Era (1900 AD - 1950 AD).
    9. Atomic Era (1950 AD - 1990 AD).
    10. Information Era (1990 AD - on).
     
  9. Primacide

    Primacide Settler

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    California
    I hate to say it, cause I don't usually like to criticize the game on a whim, but this is a good idea. It may extend your win time by maybe 100 turns, but I think if that time was fun for the player, most of us would gladly trade a little more time per game for a real chance that classical era civ's could blossom. I don't play Greece or the Huns for this reason. I just can't deploy their UUs and get to the NC at the same time.
     
  10. Socratatus

    Socratatus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,636
    The ancient era does indeed suffer in this game. I really get the feeling that the Devs were only really interested once guns and bombs showed up.
     
  11. tetley

    tetley Head tea leaf

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    Igloovik
    If you play Marathon, industrial suffers, big-time.
     
  12. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    Just play more scenarios.
     
  13. Iberian Husky

    Iberian Husky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    This never really bothered me. Pretty much ever since the Rennaissance we've been advancing rapidly, so it makes perfect sense that we would have so many eras in a short amount of time, but I do believe that parts of the Modern Era should be made part of the Industrial age and the Modern era should be expanded upon a bit more.
     
  14. PreLynMax

    PreLynMax Your Lord and Master

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,326
    Location:
    In the depths of computer hell...
    Besides, I rarely war until Renaissance anyway.
     
  15. ThisIsHughYoung

    ThisIsHughYoung Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    NYC
    Personally I like how this expresses the acceleration of invention as advances in the recording and distribution of information develop. I find it fitting that the mid-late tech trees are much more fleshed out. Also consider the time-scale of years per turn.
     
  16. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    On the years and eras, if you play on Prince level, Never sign an RA, nor run any GS specialists and always complete an era before moving on to the next one, then the years players would enter a new era actually do roughly line up with the historical consensus.

    It's just that the science sources are too abundant for the total number of turns Civ V runs for normal play.
    Doing the combo of removing Rationalism tree, removing RAs, giving GS a strength upon being born (like Great Musicians) would allow the later eras to better line up in history for normal games.
    (Or as an alternative to all that simply making turn 400 2050 AD instead of turn 500 for normal speed and rescaling years per turn starting around turn 200 would also make them line up better.)
     
  17. Horsemask

    Horsemask Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Maine
    You know, I never thought about this.
     
  18. ThisIsHughYoung

    ThisIsHughYoung Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    NYC
    Of course. On the other hand I make sure to treat Civ as a game first, not an encyclopedia. The whole experience is built on a "what-if" and I find the suspension of disbelief to be more important. Considering the fact that the game's pace without this acceleration works this way is already a fantastic thing, and I feel it rewards better players with the feeling that they're "ahead of the times". I personally like the way it works even under the framework of a game.

    IMO having no tech trading has its benefits and consequences in the game's design, but to me it feels more organic than my experiences of sudden tech traded boosts in Civ III.
     

Share This Page