Staal's thoughts on Civilization V

[Staal]

Hello all. I have been a long term Civ supporter and I feel compelled to post a few of my thoughts as I share the same anxieties as many other long term fans, but there is a little bit too much internet hysteria attached to some of these "complaints".

First off, Civilization V is a good game regardless of its bugs or whether it is a step back/forward for the series' Civness. I agree the game has been simplified and I can understand how some may feel it is no longer as epic as previous instalments.

With that in mind we must consider the changes Firaxis has made such as hexes and unhitching gold, science and culture from each other. This has fundamentally changed the balance of the game and all the knowledge and know-how of the previous 4 versions are no longer current. They had to simplify everything to make sure the basics work and only from there can they can hopefully add more complex layers again. I think we should give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt until after a few expansions. No doubt part of the simplification is due to their desire to capitalize on the CivRev market but I don't believe the series' complexity has been permanently curtailed. If after a few expansions we don't see more depth and "epicness" I think we can begin to truly worry and I would have to think long and hard about purchasing Civ VI.

In the meantime however here are some specific points;

STEAM: Drop your drama-complexes/paranoia and get over it. It is like complaining that you need to install Windows in order to play games. Steam lets you reinstall software on multiple systems as many times as you like. Rather go complain about iTunes and their ridiculous policy. You have more chance of being burgled than them "stealing" from you. Yes I don't like the £10 for the Babylonians angle either, but then just don't buy it.

SOCIAL POLICIES/CIVICS: I really like this new concept but it is definitely less complex than Civics despite it requiring long term consideration. Choosing one policy over another is not as significant as Civics were, but why should it be either/or?

Social policies could shape a Civilization's cultural traits similar to Unique Attributes but be separate from Civics (and anarchy for any civic changes). There should be synergy between social policies and civics and could give infinite combinations.

That element of timing your revolutions was a very interesting and open ended game play device that is sorely missed I believe.

DIPLOMACY: Tough one this. I prefer that we cannot see the exact modifier numbers and that stance is communicated via dialogue and visual cues. I also like that an AI is not guaranteed to be your friend because you share the same religion. Unfortunately the Civilopedia is terrible at explaining these new Pacts and how they work exactly.

- advisors should be able to tell you about negative modifiers
- social policies (cultural triats) can determine how much diplomacy is influenced by actions such as war-mongering, trade, open borders or shared religion but modifiers should not be so powerful that it guarantees a relationship as in Civ IV.
- you and the AI should get happiness penalties for betraying another Civ with which you have good relations.

WAR-WEARINESS: Where is it?

TECHNOLOGY/BUILDINGS: The tech tree is smaller and while I am not sure this is a reason for the game being simpler I would prefer more techs. Personal choice but it might give a sense of things being "larger". Buildings... just don't know, but probably need more options. I do like that some can only be built near mountains (Observatory) or certain resources (Seaport, Forge, Stables, Monasteries). But for the love of Sid Meier where is the destroy option!?!

SLIDERS/GOLD/SCIENCE: I for one am glad they are gone. Now you can actually build a gold city as opposed to a science city, but it has made the game more straight forward with little need of "tweaking". Due to this they need to increase the complexity related to the Tech Tree and Building options to compensate.

FOREIGN TRADE ROUTES: Not sure why this is gone.

CULTURE: Much better implemetation for border expansion, tile purchase etc and its link with Social Policies should definitely remain.

GREAT PEOPLE: Prefer their use now.

WONDERS: They seem fine if less powerful. I usually expand a lot so I worry about Notre Dame and the Forbidden Palace. I do like that only the city that has the Marble gets the bonus. This localization of build options is good in my opinion.

NATURAL WONDERS: Nice idea. Good encouragement to explore as much as possible.

BARBARIANS: The best implementation yet.

RELIGION: I did not like religion in Civ IV because it felt tacked on and the world was almost always nearly 1 religion or 2, either Hindu or Buddhism, and the modifiers too powerful. I do want a better implementation though.

- could be born from culture, I wasn't a fan of the tech relation
- the spread thereof should happen independently but perhaps buildings such as Monasteries and social policies can speed up conversion
- needs to be a fundamental consideration in empire management similar to gold

ESPIONAGE: Where is it? Same as religion I was not a huge fan of it in Civ IV as it felt tacked on. Both religion and espionage need to be much more fundamental to our game plan regardless of your Victory condition. Less individual unit management (destroying tiles improvements) and more empire wide uses.

HAPPINESS/HEALTH: Kinda like this combination now, but it does simplify it. What I don't like though is I don't ever want to occupy a foreign city and have to pay 5g for a Courthouse. Rather just raze it and bring in a settler. Personal choice again I guess.

They need to add something here to give more local management. The thing is I like the overall empire Happiness/Golden Age device. A two tier system perhaps? As for no health resources... it is a shame it can't be reworked instead of being removed.

RESOURCE TILES: Different, not sure if better or worse. This is probably a personal preference one.

GOLDEN AGES: Best implementation yet.

RANDOM EVENTS: What was wrong with the on/off feature?

SLAVERY: Firaxis, really? Stop with the Political Correctness. However, I would like to see it implemented different to prevent crazy early rushes. Maybe give a production and food bonus per turn but give happiness penalty.

CITY-STATES: This was my most anticipated feature but I am quite disappointed. They don't shape international relations all that much. There is no reason why I would protect them against an enemy that I wouldn't kill anyway. How do they act as linchpins in global politics? They are temporary buff goldsinks plain and simple. This feature has huge potential. Personally I would like to see city-states expand themselves and be able to build smaller empires but won't attack major Civs unless attacked first; once you open that door...

They also need more personality and influence and it shouldn't be that easy to buy. I was 2 moves away from a Science victory on King and then build the United Nations, saw I had 10k gold laying around and decided "bugger it, lets do a diplo victory". Bang! Next turn 11 votes and a win?! I didn't like that at all. It was basically a result of science (getting to the tech for the UN first) and then having a huge economy that was just printing money. I had nothing to do with them all game except to buy a few buffs.

COMBAT: I love the hexes, embarkation (reduces painful unit management and easily blocked if you build a navy) and 1 UPT. But there is an argument for allowing limited stacking but I need to give that more thought. 1 UPT makes rivers, coastline, mountains extremely useful in defense. Generally this is all plus in my book.

LENGTH OF GAME: I love it! More epicness!

Fix the AI... but that should go without saying.

 

[Feanor01]

I completely agree. To me, the game seems to be focused too much on graphics and not enough on strategy. The greatest move from Civ3 to Civ4 was removing upkeep costs for buildings. I really enjoyed that, and am not certain why they brought it back for Civ5. Now I hardly ever build a building unless it is for happiness.

For me, the game seems way too simple. I do like the new combat system very much. I like having fewer units that are more important. However, the rest of the game feels unpolished. Way too buggy. I wished the producers focused more on making a great game instead of making a great looking game. Everyone talks to the pretty girl at the bar, everyone marries the smart girl. Seems like Civ5 is the pretty girl at the bar.

 

[SlothMD]

WAR-WEARINESS: Where is it?

Modeled via the huge unhappiness penalty in occupied cities.

Which is...interesting. Your national happiness seriously dives if you pick up a bunch of unincorporated territories, but not if you embark on a war of genocide.

 

[ZombieBiskit]

I completely agree. To me, the game seems to be focused too much on graphics and not enough on strategy. The greatest move from Civ3 to Civ4 was removing upkeep costs for buildings. I really enjoyed that, and am not certain why they brought it back for Civ5. Now I hardly ever build a building unless it is for happiness.

I mean no offense by saying this, but I feel that upkeep costs for buildings is actually a large part of the strategy now. Sure, I could build every building in every town, but my economy would be garbage. Requires me to actually think about what buildings I NEED in what cities as opposed to what buildings I want. Building only happiness buildings is not, in my opinion, the most efficient use of your economy, for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Feanor01]

ZombieBiskit: Perhaps you are right. I have only played 2 games on easy settings. However, my feelings from the game are you cannot defeat yourself, where in Civ 4 it seemed that if you were incompetent you could easily defeat yourself. I do remember complaining about Civ 4 when it came out (a single strength number instead of attack/defense and religions!). I will give it some time

 

[Rince]

CITY-STATES: This was my most anticipated feature but I am quite disappointed. They don't shape international relations all that much.

I had the same impression during my game. But then suddenly it dawned on me that buying influence with gold is only meant to be a quick fix. If you want to have a permanent ally, you'll have to satisfy their requests.

Once I had that figured out, I was able to gain Oslo as an ally because I wiped out Monaco which in turn gave me Oslo's luxury resources which happened to be the ones requested by Stockholm for some time. Stockholm in turn became my ally and enabled me to start a two-front war against poor Cesar who soon vanished from the face of earth. Good times. Too bad I forgot to disable time victory

 

[gingerbill]

I mean no offense by saying this, but I feel that upkeep costs for buildings is actually a large part of the strategy now. Sure, I could build every building in every town, but my economy would be garbage. Requires me to actually think about what buildings I NEED in what cities as opposed to what buildings I want. Building only happiness buildings is not, in my opinion, the most efficient use of your economy, for a multitude of reasons.

agreed , there is alot of strategy in this game , i honestly think more than in CIV4 . Take social policies , they are far superior and involving than civics , They make a massive diffrence to how you play the game. And yo have to think ahead not just change them at will like civics. Also the facts theres options to play to make sure you get more social policies , so even how much you depend on them is a strategy choice.

Theres loads of other things more detailed than given credit for .

agree with the OP on most things.

 

[Malecite]

I would wholeheartedly disagree about the new civics.

They are clumsy and ineffective, often times I think of them as "oh great my civ gained a level". The underlying problem is they DO NOT REFLECT HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY. Sure you might start out with say honor and go for a military conquest, then later perhaps you want to focus scientifically but you cant unless you have culture points coming out of your rectum. You might say: "well hey its more strategic this way, you gotta choose carefully", really!? If I'm going to spend 10 hours playing a game, it would be damn nice if something I picked on turn 2 didn't influence my choices 400 turns later. I dont call that strategic, I call it bloody restrictive.

The best part of civ 4 was your government civics affected nearly everything you chose to do, if you wanted to go to war, you could change to communism and gained a variety of benefits and penalties. Now you get these lame static modifiers that seem cool at first, but very rapidly become irritatingly dull. Oh and the lack of any religious influence further degrades the experience into a very simple, albeit boring alternative.

But thats my opinion.

 

[The Boz]

The best part of civ 4 was your government civics affected nearly everything you chose to do, if you wanted to go to war, you could change to communism and gained a variety of benefits and penalties. Now you get these lame static modifiers that seem cool at first, but very rapidly become irritatingly dull. Oh and the lack of any religious influence further degrades the experience into a very simple, albeit boring alternative.

Yeah, it used to be so awesome to switch from a libertarian utopia to totalitarian autocratic communism whenever you declare war, and then switch back ten years later, and become an atheist in the process. So good.

 

[Malecite]

Yea you know... like real "dynamic societies" that dont honor the same principles they had at their inception several thousand years later, and governments that aren't set for the ages...

 

[Becephalus]

I would like to see a system maybe where with each era you can remove and replace 1 social policy? But I also think you should have to spend them immediately.

 

[heartCORE]

Yea you know... like real "dynamic societies" that dont honor the same principles they had at their inception several thousand years later, and governments that aren't set for the ages...

serveral thousand years?

 

[Generals3]

Yeah, it used to be so awesome to switch from a libertarian utopia to totalitarian autocratic communism whenever you declare war, and then switch back ten years later, and become an atheist in the process. So good.

Germany WW2 comes into mind. Thats exactly what happened (kinda) : Democracy => Police State => War => Peace => Democracy .

Now i must admit the system wasn't perfect but it wasn't bad . And a combination of social policies and civics and synergies would be nice.