The 1 thing that just kills me while playing this game

[Helmling]

I think the elimination of health (which was admittedly new to Civ IV) and the elimination of local happiness is a big factor. Those were things you had to monitor and manage. The designers eliminated them, but they also gave cities more individual flavor, which in turn increased your investment in them. I don't feel as connected to my cities anymore--in much the same way I don't during a game of Civ Rev.

 

[bryanw1995]

No scaling of luxuries with map size ? Is this confirmed ? This is a major game breaking flaw indeed !

LOL...are you serious?

it's tough to get all the luxuries on smaller maps anyway b/c you often have one belligerent on the other side of the world with a monopoly or 2. larger games are tough with a happiness cap but certainly not unplayable. fp, meritocracy, piety track, etc are quite helpful post-patch, even tradition can be useful on huge maps now with landed elite turbo-charging territory aquisition.

 

[schmere]

I've played Civ since v1, and I'm liking V better than the predecessors. My main issue with IV (which I found unplayable until BTS) was the late-game micro; too many units in too many places to keep track of. But then, I can usually only get 1-2 hour sessions going, so I need the game to move along a bit. I imagine that, if I had 5-8 hour gaming sessions, I'd have more time/luxury to think more deeply about the game.

I also found it necessary to play at Epic speed for war purposes. Since unit speed doesn't ramp with game speed (you get x moves per turn, regardless of game speed) a unit is much more "mobile" in the slower speeds. I like Epic on CiV, but haven't tried Marathon. I can imagine it would drag significantly.

I find that the "clicking" time (while the other players have their "turns") is useful to review the map and consider strategic options. Then, when it's my turn again, I'm ready to execute the ideas I came up with. Not to say that I'm against faster processing; just not finding it to be a gamebreaker.

 

[charon2112]

But the pace of this game absolutely kills me. I loaded it back up last night after playing Civ IV for the last 2 weeks, as I wanted to try out the new patch. And I just cannot believe how different the 2 games are in terms of pace. In IV it always feels like there is a decision to be made, something to do. But in V within 15 minutes, I can't help but feeling like I'm selecting "Next Turn" more than I'm doing anything else. It just seems like everything takes forever to produce, and there's way too much waiting time.

I've heard this said a few times before, and I was wondering if you could go into more detail. Like, what kind of decisions do you find yourself making in IV that you don't see in V? I still play both games and I find the pace pretty similar, except for longer build times for buildings in V (which I prefer anyway). But there are some really slow periods in IV, especially hitting 'end turn' over and over to get that first settler built, which can take 25 turns or so.

 

[Beef Hammer]

I also don't understand the argument that people are bored pressing next too much. EVERY other civ game has been like this. There is ALWAYS going to be times when your spamming text turn until there's more stuff unlocked/built for you to play with.

Also I'm starting to mess around with marathon speed, and it's a lot more fun than this thread is giving credit. Slow exploring feels much more real to me, and you can actually have wars with like units on all sides for a period of time. Really helps making the BC's feel like the BC's.

 

[Buccaneer]

Must be a generation gap thing. I find plenty to do most turns in Civ5, just as I did in Civ4. I don't need to rush through my civ games, nor have any problems taking my time and play over many days. Not everything has to be done in internet time, you know?

 

[alpaca]

I've heard this said a few times before, and I was wondering if you could go into more detail. Like, what kind of decisions do you find yourself making in IV that you don't see in V? I still play both games and I find the pace pretty similar, except for longer build times for buildings in V (which I prefer anyway). But there are some really slow periods in IV, especially hitting 'end turn' over and over to get that first settler built, which can take 25 turns or so.

The main difference for me is that in Civ4 I usually had to micro health and happiness in cities every once in a while. These provided some small problems that you could solve for a small reward, which is quite good if you don't have anything to do on a larger scale

 

[Warspite2]

I can tolerate the questionable AI. I can tolerate some of the questionable decisions in terms of the Wonders, certain civ's being overpowered, stuff like that.

But the pace of this game absolutely kills me. I loaded it back up last night after playing Civ IV for the last 2 weeks, as I wanted to try out the new patch. And I just cannot believe how different the 2 games are in terms of pace. In IV it always feels like there is a decision to be made, something to do. But in V within 15 minutes, I can't help but feeling like I'm selecting "Next Turn" more than I'm doing anything else. It just seems like everything takes forever to produce, and there's way too much waiting time.

I can't imagine this will be something that's ever changed, so it might be something that I just have to end up accepting. I like the rest of the game, I really do. But it just feels like it is sooooooooooo slow in developing.

Im sorry but this is one thing I completely disagree with. I think they were dead on with the pace of this game. My friend also agreed they finally got this right. All the ages actually go through their time periods as they should. Civ IV went too fast through the time periods and as a result I was not always able to experience the different eras/ages as I can in CiV. I am referring to normal game speed here. Oh and there is quick speed, so I really don't even see a problem here if you want a faster game. Just as in Civ IV if I wanted longer games I could select epic.

 

[Celevin]

I don't mind how much I have to do in a given turn. On Standard speed there's usually a trade deal I need to look at, or a unit I want to move, or I'm exploring, etc. What I can't stand at all is the speed the techs go by.

I built 2 buildings, 1 wonder, and 2 units in my last game, and at about that time I hit Medieval. What the hell!

 

[ohioastronomy]

Must be a generation gap thing. I find plenty to do most turns in Civ5, just as I did in Civ4. I don't need to rush through my civ games, nor have any problems taking my time and play over many days. Not everything has to be done in internet time, you know?

Is there some generation that prefers to watch the computer figure out what to do? I am surprised when people make excuses for an obvious drawback (a large fraction of game time spent doing nothing except waiting for the computer.) There are things which are matters of taste, and - sorry - this just isn't one of them. It's a flaw.

 

[Gort]

Wow. I couldn't imagine trying to play this game on any speed slower than quick, and I find map sizes above small to be ridiculously large. I'd far rather take fewer, more important decisions than many less important ones.

Of course, I mostly play multiplayer and like my games to take 3-4 hours at most. I wish there was a way to add more civilisations to a map size in multiplayer, and set different players to different difficulty levels. The difficulty box is even there, it's just that changing it doesn't seem to affect anything at all.

 

[Buccaneer]

Is there some generation that prefers to watch the computer figure out what to do? I am surprised when people make excuses for an obvious drawback (a large fraction of game time spent doing nothing except waiting for the computer.) There are things which are matters of taste, and - sorry - this just isn't one of them. It's a flaw.

I have not noticed any significant waits between turns, esp. when there could be lots of AI actions to watch. Late in the game it gets slower but so did Civ4. Besides, ever play a WW2 scenario in Civ2, Civ3 or Civ4?

 

[Buccaneer]

What I can't stand at all is the speed the techs go by.

I built 2 buildings, 1 wonder, and 2 units in my last game, and at about that time I hit Medieval. What the hell!

Time for my daily But-EVERYONE-wanted-tech-overflow quip. But then again, there are some that have no patience to play a strategy game and likes to zip through everything.

 

[Sneaks]

The issue for me is less with tech overflow, and more with the Nat'l Library. It is THAT good and comes out so early. It changes gameplay to make anything not a Writing rush feel like a mistake.

 

[man-erg]

I would say Civ V is far less micro on a general King setting than IV, which is exactly how the designers intended it. IV had a very strong and devoted community, but there was far too much micromanagement to appeal to the "casual gamer" that Firaxis/2k was hoping to grab with V.

I think you're right that this is the thinking behind many of the design decisions of V.

With less decision making, the game moves faster towards resolution,

And that's the problem. V moves MUCH slower. And the gamer isn't even having to do anything. Micro- is a pain and should be minimised, but I'd still rather spend a minute actually doing something than a few seconds clicking on the next obvious thing to build and then waiting for 20 secs...repeated ad nauseum.

often in a far more linear manner.

Yes, another big problem with V. Too linear. Inexorably creeps slowly to the conclusion you knew 10 hours before.

This does not necessarily apply to those that play in a min/max high level style, where each citizen is individually placed, but as an overall strategy, it is a much sleeker and more streamlined beast.

So streamlined, it hardly matters *what* you do! Just click "next turn" and everyones a winner!!!

 

[charon2112]

So streamlined, it hardly matters *what* you do! Just click "next turn" and everyones a winner!!!

Do you really believe that if you just click the end turn button you'll win?

 

[BryceC]

I like the pace, and I agree that anything above a "small" map is too big. Civs are way too spread out.

Of course I also like Hearts of Iron and that game is a micromanagement beast and a very, very slow game.

 

[Celevin]

Time for my daily But-EVERYONE-wanted-tech-overflow quip. But then again, there are some that have no patience to play a strategy game and likes to zip through everything.

Tech overflow was needed, man. Let this argument die. It was all needless micromanagement with severe penalties.

My beef with tech pacing happens on all speeds including Epic and Marathon, which aren't subject to too much overflow. The cause is the National College happening so early and doubling the science of your empire. Combine this with Tradition, which makes your capitol huge at the start and the college easier to build. I am no longer witnessing the Ancient and Classical eras, I'm zooming right on past them.

This, combined with puppet states, is causing me to quit games in rage. It's reached the point of no longer being fun because of how much better the optimal strategies are. In an ideal game, strategies should be close enough in power that random elements can make one better than another, causing you to change depending on what everything looks like. Right now in Civ5 certain strategies are so good that it doesn't matter what the map looks like or who your neighbours are.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Do you really believe that if you just click the end turn button you'll win?

The game certainly favors letting puppets run your cities, and you have to burn cash to fight the cultural growth algorithm. So, in that sense, you can find that you're not even making the key decisions on what your position is supposed to be doing (or it doesn't matter very much whether you do or not.)

 

[charon2112]

The game certainly favors letting puppets run your cities, and you have to burn cash to fight the cultural growth algorithm. So, in that sense, you can find that you're not even making the key decisions on what your position is supposed to be doing (or it doesn't matter very much whether you do or not.)

okay, but IV and V both have governors that run (at least the tile working aspect of) your cities. And (at least I think) every decision regarding your city management in IV you can make in V. Except for health buildings of course, but that was really a redundant duplicate of happiness anyway.