The 1 thing that just kills me while playing this game

The Slavery comment is spot on. I never used Slavery in Civ 4 because I felt it was broken, and things aren't very different in 5 as far as things to do.

If I had my druthers, they'd get rid of Rush buy, too. :)
 
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.

You can't control what puppets build, and the game encourages you to use them. You also have to spend quite a bit of cash to develop tiles - like hills - that the AI algorithm doesn't care about. So, in this case, the game vectors you towards things where you don't decide most of what happens. I think that's a lot of what people are talking about in the "few decisions" category - not just that there aren't a lot of things to do (true relative to prior games), but also that you can find yourself not even deciding the limited options yourself.
 
civ4 had lots of brainless micromanagement

civ5 does too to some extent, but less of it since all the tiles are basically the same...
 
A couple notes:

C4: during the earliest expansion you had to fight of animals everywhere. Then the barbarians came in droves & you better have been prepared! Even building improvements was often a chore because of barbarian activity. Meanwhile, while trying like hell to keep a footing, you were trying to create enough wealth to create enough research to make strategic bee-lines to pivotal wonders or to found a religion.

I remember going out on 40 to 50 turn limbs to get Code of Laws. Oh and the agony of waiting all those turns and hoping your frontier troops could hold off the barbs just long enough -- I'm breaking into a cold sweat now. ;) If you were fortunate enough to get an early religion, then you had many different options to juggle -- gotta spread the religion, but can't neglect everything else......this was trade-off decision-making & rewarding when you made the right calls. Meanwhile, with everything else demanding attention, espionage also required at least some attention. There were just so many items vying for the player's attention in C4 -- and to neglect any one thing could create real problems later.

By contrast, in C5 it seems there are just fewer decisions to make and the decisions seem to carry less weight. Example: In C5, diplomatic decisions have consequences, but they seem less meaningful because the consequence aren't very clear. In C4, building relationships required conscious efforts -- sometimes you had to swallow real hard and make a really difficult decision regarding friend or foe -- because in C4 you knew that these decisions had lasting and substantive consequences.

Armies were bigger in C4 and they could be constructed quickly. Your weak and passive neighbor might quickly chop out a few units, enslave a few more, and suddenly within a few turns be ready to knock down your door. In C5, armies are smaller and built slower -- you don't have to keep a close eye on your weak neighbor because you know he can't just chop and enslave his way to superiority in a matter of turns.

All local politics is global in C5. So, if I conquer a new city and bring 3 unhappy citizens into my empire thereby -- no problem -- I'll build a circus in some other city to somehow appease those citizens. And anyways, the negative consequences for unhappiness only matters when it reaches specified and arbitrary thresholds -- there's no difference between 1 unhappy and 3 unhappy citizens. Also, the healthiness of cities is no longer a concern the player no longer has the tough call to make between health and happiness.

Buildings take so long to build they almost feel like mini-wonders by the time they're built, but their effects are somewhat underwhelming unless you're stacking multipliers by specializing your cities (which I always carefully do now). OTOH, I have noticed that if you build the granaries and watermills early, and shift as much over into production as you can (even sometimes starving the city) when you're building the big stuff, then production times are actually pretty comparable to C4.

The tech tree has been simplified. Now, fewer techs do more things. I'd prefer more techs doing less things, which would require tough decisions and trade-offs. Research agreements are a passive process that doesn't seem compelling. Units don't require pre-reqs that makes sense as before.

In short, it just seems there's less going on in this world and what is going on is slower paced and not nearly so compelling. I'm just trying to give words to how I feel when I play C5 v. C4. Now, having said all that, I actually am enjoying C5 for the first time with this latest patch and 5 mods thrown in. So, things are looking up as far as I'm concerned.
 
Use 'Singleplayer Autoturn', it stops whenever there is something that needs to be done - and doesn't require you to sit and press the button all the time. You can roll up or something while you plan your next move ;)
 
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 thought Civ IV sold pretty well -- 3 million copies as of early 2008, probably a half-million since + two expansions. That's successful.

I don't know what sales number they were hoping to hit with CIV V but they're not going to make it. Why? "Word" is this game isn't much fund to play, that multiplayer doesn't work well, etc. etc.

Bottom line: if they were really, truly aiming for mass appeal they would have spent more time polishing this game and playtesting it more than they did so it would be fun. I would venture this was more about rushing a product/capitalizing on a storied franchise/making a quick buck, plus gobs of dlc sort of effort.

Milked, but sour milk as it turns out.

I'd prefer more techs doing less things, which would require tough decisions and trade-offs.

Yes "tough decisions and trade-offs," creating excitement and suspense. Are they in Civ V?
 
I thought Civ IV sold pretty well -- 3 million copies as of early 2008, probably a million since + two expansions. That's successful.

I don't know what sales number they were hoping to hit with CIV V but they're not going to make it. Why? "Word" is this game isn't much fund to play, that multiplayer doesn't work well, etc. etc.

Bottom line: if they were really, truly aiming for mass appeal they would have spent more time polishing this game and playtesting it more than they did so it would be fun. I would venture this was more about rushing a product/capitalizing on a storied franchise/making a quick buck, plus gobs of dlc sort of effort.

Milked, but sour milk as it turns out.
How many copies did Civ5 sell? Did it do well compared to other games sold in its genre? (Please don't compare it to Starcraft 2 or the latest FPS. Also please don't speculate future sales based on the state of the game, let's just analyze how well it's done so far)
 
A couple notes:

C4: during the earliest expansion you had to fight of animals everywhere. Then the barbarians came in droves & you better have been prepared! Even building improvements was often a chore because of barbarian activity. Meanwhile, while trying like hell to keep a footing, you were trying to create enough wealth to create enough research to make strategic bee-lines to pivotal wonders or to found a religion.

I remember going out on 40 to 50 turn limbs to get Code of Laws. Oh and the agony of waiting all those turns and hoping your frontier troops could hold off the barbs just long enough -- I'm breaking into a cold sweat now. ;) If you were fortunate enough to get an early religion, then you had many different options to juggle -- gotta spread the religion, but can't neglect everything else......this was trade-off decision-making & rewarding when you made the right calls.

If you were playing on a difficulty level where it was at all worth it to get and spread an early religion, you were playing on a difficulty where the barbarians were chumps anyway.

Meanwhile, with everything else demanding attention, espionage also required at least some attention. There were just so many items vying for the player's attention in C4 -- and to neglect any one thing could create real problems later.

Ah, so what you actually mean is "after tons of games with vanilla and warlords, I finally played a game where espionage was something to pay attention to when they released the second expansion with the completely-broken-on-marathon-speed poison and unhappiness missions."

By contrast, in C5 it seems there are just fewer decisions to make and the decisions seem to carry less weight. Example: In C5, diplomatic decisions have consequences, but they seem less meaningful because the consequence aren't very clear. In C4, building relationships required conscious efforts -- sometimes you had to swallow real hard and make a really difficult decision regarding friend or foe -- because in C4 you knew that these decisions had lasting and substantive consequences.

Armies were bigger in C4 and they could be constructed quickly. Your weak and passive neighbor might quickly chop out a few units, enslave a few more, and suddenly within a few turns be ready to knock down your door.

You see the contradiction here, right? Not building an army has no lasting and substantive consequences.

In C5, armies are smaller and built slower -- you don't have to keep a close eye on your weak neighbor because you know he can't just chop and enslave his way to superiority in a matter of turns.

Flip side, if you're weak in Civ 5, you'll pay for it. Make that decision -- army or buildings? You don't have enough production to do everything.

More thoughts later.
 
A couple notes:

C4: during the earliest expansion you had to fight of animals everywhere. Then the barbarians came in droves & you better have been prepared! Even building improvements was often a chore because of barbarian activity. Meanwhile, while trying like hell to keep a footing, you were trying to create enough wealth to create enough research to make strategic bee-lines to pivotal wonders or to found a religion.

I remember going out on 40 to 50 turn limbs to get Code of Laws. Oh and the agony of waiting all those turns and hoping your frontier troops could hold off the barbs just long enough -- I'm breaking into a cold sweat now. ;) If you were fortunate enough to get an early religion, then you had many different options to juggle -- gotta spread the religion, but can't neglect everything else......this was trade-off decision-making & rewarding when you made the right calls. Meanwhile, with everything else demanding attention, espionage also required at least some attention. There were just so many items vying for the player's attention in C4 -- and to neglect any one thing could create real problems later.

By contrast, in C5 it seems there are just fewer decisions to make and the decisions seem to carry less weight. Example: In C5, diplomatic decisions have consequences, but they seem less meaningful because the consequence aren't very clear. In C4, building relationships required conscious efforts -- sometimes you had to swallow real hard and make a really difficult decision regarding friend or foe -- because in C4 you knew that these decisions had lasting and substantive consequences.

Armies were bigger in C4 and they could be constructed quickly. Your weak and passive neighbor might quickly chop out a few units, enslave a few more, and suddenly within a few turns be ready to knock down your door. In C5, armies are smaller and built slower -- you don't have to keep a close eye on your weak neighbor because you know he can't just chop and enslave his way to superiority in a matter of turns.

All local politics is global in C5. So, if I conquer a new city and bring 3 unhappy citizens into my empire thereby -- no problem -- I'll build a circus in some other city to somehow appease those citizens. And anyways, the negative consequences for unhappiness only matters when it reaches specified and arbitrary thresholds -- there's no difference between 1 unhappy and 3 unhappy citizens. Also, the healthiness of cities is no longer a concern the player no longer has the tough call to make between health and happiness.

Buildings take so long to build they almost feel like mini-wonders by the time they're built, but their effects are somewhat underwhelming unless you're stacking multipliers by specializing your cities (which I always carefully do now). OTOH, I have noticed that if you build the granaries and watermills early, and shift as much over into production as you can (even sometimes starving the city) when you're building the big stuff, then production times are actually pretty comparable to C4.

The tech tree has been simplified. Now, fewer techs do more things. I'd prefer more techs doing less things, which would require tough decisions and trade-offs. Research agreements are a passive process that doesn't seem compelling. Units don't require pre-reqs that makes sense as before.

In short, it just seems there's less going on in this world and what is going on is slower paced and not nearly so compelling. I'm just trying to give words to how I feel when I play C5 v. C4. Now, having said all that, I actually am enjoying C5 for the first time with this latest patch and 5 mods thrown in. So, things are looking up as far as I'm concerned.

This is a really good post. I think it sums up the "epic" feeling of Civ4, but addresses it in a way with specifics.

I think 90% of your problems could be solved simply by decreasing the cost of units and buildings. The pacing of the game is what is causing us to not appreciate which tech to grab next, as we could grab both before we'd even finish our current projects. I hit this in wars a lot as it takes a whole tech just to build a single unit. I also hit this building wise as a building can take 2 techs, sometimes 3 or 4 if it's a wonder. Who wants a city incapacitated for half an era? Do I research a culture tech or happiness tech next? In the early game at least it doesn't really matter as I can grab both before my cities are ready to build either.

Today I was building a barracks in both of my cities. I was considering "should I grab horseback riding and use my 4 horses, or risk getting iron working?". I then found out I could grab 1.5 techs before the barracks even finish (and this was a size 11 city - not bad for early game)! There was no choice to be made, I grabbed both techs before I had a single unit out the door, and started towards the next era.


I think at this point the game would be much more fun if units built 3x faster (yes I'm serious), died faster, and couldn't upgrade at all. They take too long to build and you get too attached to them with multiple upgrades. They're all individual heroes that we now build in the Ancient era and they never die over the course of the game. Earthling, if you're reading this, you were right 2 months ago. Damnit.
 
This is a really good post. I think it sums up the "epic" feeling of Civ4, but addresses it in a way with specifics.

I think 90% of your problems could be solved simply by decreasing the cost of units and buildings. The pacing of the game is what is causing us to not appreciate which tech to grab next, as we could grab both before we'd even finish our current projects. I hit this in wars a lot as it takes a whole tech just to build a single unit. I also hit this building wise as a building can take 2 techs, sometimes 3 or 4 if it's a wonder. Who wants a city incapacitated for half an era? Do I research a culture tech or happiness tech next? In the early game at least it doesn't really matter as I can grab both before my cities are ready to build either.

Today I was building a barracks in both of my cities. I was considering "should I grab horseback riding and use my 4 horses, or risk getting iron working?". I then found out I could grab 1.5 techs before the barracks even finish (and this was a size 11 city - not bad for early game)! There was no choice to be made, I grabbed both techs before I had a single unit out the door, and started towards the next era.


I think at this point the game would be much more fun if units built 3x faster (yes I'm serious), died faster, and couldn't upgrade at all. They take too long to build and you get too attached to them with multiple upgrades. They're all individual heroes that we now build in the Ancient era and they never die over the course of the game. Earthling, if you're reading this, you were right 2 months ago. Damnit.

This is totaly correct. After playing MODS that adressed this and the all tiles are the same problem I can't go back. Ironicly I just bought a copy of CIV 4 Complete edition to tide me over until the wonderfull moders on this site can update their mods for compatability with the latest patch
 
I don't research faster than I can produce because I focus on production rather than research. Your mileage may vary.
 
If you were playing on a difficulty level where it was at all worth it to get and spread an early religion, you were playing on a difficulty where the barbarians were chumps anyway.

I played immortal difficulty with raging barbarians -- Revolutions DCM mod -- where barbarians could spawn into civilizations. The barbarians were no chumps, if only because their sheer numbers. And of course it was worth going out on a limb for a religion to spread! (Holy City + all the economic buildings & nat'l wonders + corporate HQs = financial dominance!)


Ah, so what you actually mean is "after tons of games with vanilla and warlords, I finally played a game where espionage was something to pay attention to when they released the second expansion with the completely-broken-on-marathon-speed poison and unhappiness missions."

Yes, I played many games of C4 prior to espionage being an option. That wasn't my point. My point was that espionage became something that required our attention in C4 -- it was one of those things going on in C4 that C5 doesn't have. The absence of espionage in C5 is one reason why it feels like there's less going on. Also, my point was not that C4's espionage system was the best possible system.


You see the contradiction here, right? Not building an army has no lasting and substantive consequences.

It's only a contradiction when you lift the quote from its proper context. I was referring to diplomacy when I spoke of lasting consequences. You're talking about military building. As far as military building is concerned, I said that it was possible to go from non-threat to big-threat in short order, which is a big difference between C4 and C5.


if you're weak in Civ 5, you'll pay for it.

I don't think that is a huge difference from C4. Power rating was definitely something that you had to pay attention to in C4 -- especially at higher difficulties. The difference is that if you were attacked in C4 and you weren't prepared, the player had options at his disposal to build a quick military. Those same tools don't exist in C5.


Make that decision -- army or buildings? You don't have enough production to do everything.

That I agree with. And actually, I like having to specialize cities and really have a concrete plan for each city. Because, you're right, in C5 there isn't time for everything. Since I like to MM and to specialize my cities, this change fits my style of game-play.


More thoughts later.

I have another thought. Another big difference between C4 and C5 is switching gov'ts versus choosing social policies. The former required the player, again, to make tough choices with severe trade offs. The latter provides only positive benefits -- it's just a matter of choosing which benefit is most beneficial or least unhelpful. Also, in C4, changing gov'ts often coincided with a distinct change in direction whereas there isn't that same feeling of shifting gears in C5.

And another thought......C4 had random events. Those events really added spice to the game. I didn't like the negative events, but I really think that C5 should have kept the positive events. It always felt like a mini-jackpot when something cool would happen randomly -- like an extra movement on all the players roads because engineers had perfected a better road system -- it seemed compelling enough and it was something the player could visualize -- it added imaginative possibilities and variety to the game.


I don't research faster than I can produce because I focus on production rather than research.

I do think that it is possible to bring production times down to C4 levels, but you have to emphasize production at all costs. I'm playing an Epic game on immortal right now.....I'm about 120 turns in.....one of my cities (pop. 5) is being specialized to pump out melee units. I have switched all the tiles over toward production to the point of having 0 extra food. Workshops aren't available to me yet. Even with a few turns of golden age, it will have taken my city approximately 25 turns to build barracks and an armory. Now that's not too bad. But, the techs available to me are: 1 at 6 turns; 1 at 9 turns; 1 at 12 turns; and I could go out on a limb for a 23 turn tech or a 38 turn tech. I'll be picking up a couple of the cheaper techs before going out on the limbs. By then, those bigger techs will probably be down under 20 and 30 turns respectively. So, I'll have probably picked up close to 3 techs by the time I will have finished building 2 military buildings so that I can start building swordman popping out with 30xp. Again, a decent ratio between techs and buildings, but it requires dedication to production for sure! I'll switch back over to food production once I'm building units again.


So, again, I'm having fun in my post-patch C5 game right now (it's the first time I've actually had that 'I'm CIVing out tonight' feeling since I bought the game). So, I DO think that it's headed in the right direction. Now, just some more hard work from those genius modders out there, some more patches, and a few expansions away from perfection! ;)
 
You can't control what puppets build, and the game encourages you to use them. You also have to spend quite a bit of cash to develop tiles - like hills - that the AI algorithm doesn't care about. So, in this case, the game vectors you towards things where you don't decide most of what happens. I think that's a lot of what people are talking about in the "few decisions" category - not just that there aren't a lot of things to do (true relative to prior games), but also that you can find yourself not even deciding the limited options yourself.

Now puppet governments are one of those things that I don't really understand people complaining about. I think it's good that they've added a third option when conquering a city. It would be bad if they had replaced a straight conquering with puppets, but you can still just conquer a city, or raze it, and now a third option, install a puppet government. As soon as I heard about this feature I thought it was a great idea, and I still do. In my games, I don't see the game vectoring me towards puppets at all, it's just another option.
 
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 don't mind longer turns if it means better AI, which post patch it seems to. 1UPT pathfinding is difficult for the AI to do efficiently, so sure enough turns take longer. Some code optimization would certainly help, but I'd rather have longer turns and the AI doing the best it can, than giving up AI accuracy for faster speed. Admittedly most of all I'd rather have stacks of doom than 1UPT and avoid the whole problem with turn length.
 
It is such a let down to see Colosseum - 30 turns Granary 16 Turns. There's not time to build anything.
 
Granary 16 Turns

But, once you've built that granary, that equates to one tile that you can move over from food gathering to production. It won't take long for the granary to pay for itself in production gained on other items. In my latest game, I built a granary in my capital and a watermill in my 2nd city asap. Even though it was a tough call early on, that decision gave those two cities a real boost in the long term.


Colosseum - 30 turns

I try to build the big ticket items right after my city population has already expanded. If I see that it's gonna be 20 or 30 turns before my population expands again, I'm thinking.....okay.....lets just switch everything over to production and get this big ticket item knocked out -- the city won't be growing for awhile anyways. I may even starve a city to eek out more production. I love seeing those 30 turn items drop to to the 20 range ;)
 
Would have taken long in Civ4 too, but there was Slavery to balance things if your cities don't have production...
these problems would be easy to fix, if they want to.
 
Back
Top Bottom