The problem with this game.

[michaeljhuman]

When I use quick time setting, and select quick move and quick combat, the games goes pretty fast on my machine. I have a pretty fast machine though - i7 3770 overclocked.

What slows the game down, given the above conditions, is domination victories with 10+ units. Be nice to have a move mode, where I can place the final position of all the units, and the game works out the intermediate moves, then if I hit commit, remembers what I wanted to do unless an attack happens (in which case it could have a cancel/resume capability for that "move group" .)

I prefer about 5 to 6 hours for a game. I usually take three sessions to complete a game. After 2 hours of playing, I am usually a bit worn out from the constant decisions and such. I am not in my 20s and 30s anymore where I could play video games for 15 hours straight [A new game might be inspire me though, like the new Sim City ]

 

[markusbeutel]

I could finish a game on STANDARD in Civ4 in under 2 hours. This just isn't possible in Civ5 as the engine just isn't efficient enough - especially once you get to end-game turn times, which are exponentially longer than the already long turn times at the start of the game.

This is one area I'm hoping gets focused attention for Civ6 by Firaxis, as most players just don't have the time to invest in games that span days/weeks - especially when previous entries in the series (Civ4 specifically) didn't limit players to this extent.

Interestingly enough, it seems that Firaxis put a significant amount of effort went into making Civ5's custom engine as efficient as possible http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/sid-meier-s-civilization-v-finds-the-graphics-sweet-spot

They failed.

 

[the343danny]

TBH if game length is too long for you, then the entire civilization series is not for you.

That is, unless you go bumrushing everybody early on.

 

[civ54lyfe]

I'd say that if it applied to turn-length. Most people really putting time into the Civ series are pretty intelligent in most other aspects of life.

 

[markusbeutel]

TBH if game length is too long for you, then the entire civilization series is not for you.

That is, unless you go bumrushing everybody early on.

Game length is a problem BECAUSE of turn length. When you spend more time in a game waiting to play your turn as opposed to actually playing the game, something's wrong. Compare turn times in V to I,II,III,IV - and you'll find they take way longer in V - which leads me to believe that if game length is too long for you, then CIV V is in fact not for you, and you should probably be playing either I, II, III, or IV.

 

[Masher8559]

I only play on Marathon because i actually think the game should take longer

Opinions eh?

 

[Love CiV]

I make up stories about my civ to pass the few seconds it takes for my turn to start.

My friends think it's weird, but it's even more fun in epic and marathon modes.

 

[Ramenbowl]

I don't understand how you can be a civ fan if you complain about the length of the game

CIV is supposed to be an in-depth & strategically complex game that is not resolved immediately through a few point and clicks. It's about making perplexing judgements & decisions on subsequent moves & constantly re-aligning your goals & objectives in the wake of opposing reflex.

If you want shorter, play Age of Empires?

 

[iamdanno]

I like the fact that a game lasts for a long time. I just wish it wasn't mostly waiting time. . .

 

[dashwinner]

for those of us with 'not-as-powerful' computers, invest in an ipad to pass the time between turns

I do like the lenght it takes, but i agree that the end-game (industrial and beyond) needs a little more going for it. It's either all-out war, which takes forever even with animations turned off, or you already know you've won and you're waiting for that final tech/culture clicking the next button over and over and waiting a good amount of time (20-30 seconds for me) for the next turn...

 

[ahawk]

I've finished games in as little as 30 minutes, and as much as 15 to 20 hours. Here are my thoughts:

If a game is too long, try a Duel-sized map on a harder difficulty. Duel-sized maps are very fast, because no matter what game speed you're on, there's never going to be the need to drag an army around for 30 or more turns, and the possible decisions to be made are fewer (less cities to build in, less places to look at for settling, fewer CSs, etc.). A Duel-sized Emperor game rarely takes me more than 3 hours, and sometimes takes as little as less than an hour.

Some civs have the potential to win very, very early on smaller maps. Greece, the Huns, Persia, and maybe a couple others all have UA's or UU's that allow them to rush their neighbors and capture a couple of capitals without even making it to the renaissance era. On smaller maps (by which I mean Duel, Tiny, and Small), it's likely that if you take just a capital or two that you'll only have one more to take during the entire mid-game, meaning you'll be in position to win without too much trouble, riding on the backs of Battering Rams, Hoplites, or a Golden Age Immortal rush.

And even on Large and Huge maps, if you subtract end-of-turn-processing delays from the AI, it's possible to win in a matter of a few hours if you stay small, play for cultural or science or diplomatic victories, and abstain from any offensive wars.

Beyond all that, when I play on Huge maps, I tend to put the TV on or have something else for the late-game end-of-turn delays.

 

[ShuShu62]

Possible idea(?) -fix the damn turntime processing! that's most of your game. Improve whatever algorithms and/or coding baggage that could use it.

fix the stupid: 'your worker forgot what he was doing' while you are at it.

 

[Windsor]

There's a difference between a SHORTER game(like duel map, quick speed and so on) and FASTER game.

And yes. Civ5 struggles with speed. First of, the game engine isn't great(and yes, Civ4 had a lousy engine too). Then you have UI-issues. Things takes to many clicks and the UI isn't responsive enough. Then you got game design issues. And yes, 1upt plays a big part. It's just inherent in the design that managing a carpet takes longer time than a stack(again Civ4 didn't handle stacks very well). When choosing such a time consuming game design it should be vital to make the game run fast and smooth, but Civ5 doesn't deliver.

The "complexity/depth" arguments doesn't seem very strong at all. If a player needs to stare at the board for a few minutes to think then it's ok. But that's not what the complaints are about. The complaints are about the wast amount of time it takes to carry out a task after the decision is made and all the time wasted waiting (between turns, for screens to pop up, new units to be selected and so on)

This is one area I'm hoping gets focused attention for Civ6 by Firaxis, as most players just don't have the time to invest in games that span days/weeks - especially when previous entries in the series (Civ4 specifically) didn't limit players to this extent.
.

Soren Johnson noted in a recent episode of Three Moves Ahead(201 I think) that he just recently realized how important it is for a game to be "snappy".

 

[ahawk]

There's a difference between a SHORTER game(like duel map, quick speed and so on) and FASTER game.

And yes. Civ5 struggles with speed. First of, the game engine isn't great(and yes, Civ4 had a lousy engine too). Then you have UI-issues. Things takes to many clicks and the UI isn't responsive enough. Then you got game design issues. And yes, 1upt plays a big part. It's just inherent in the design that managing a carpet takes longer time than a stack(again Civ4 didn't handle stacks very well). When choosing such a time consuming game design it should be vital to make the game run fast and smooth, but Civ5 doesn't deliver.

The "complexity/depth" arguments doesn't seem very strong at all. If a player needs to stare at the board for a few minutes to think then it's ok. But that's not what the complaints are about. The complaints are about the wast amount of time it takes to carry out a task after the decision is made and all the time wasted waiting (between turns, for screens to pop up, new units to be selected and so on)




Soren Johnson noted in a recent episode of Three Moves Ahead(201 I think) that he just recently realized how important it is for a game to be "snappy".

There is indeed a difference between shorter and faster.

The issue is that all we as players can do is choose a shorter game or buy a better rig. Not everyone can buy a better rig. And optimizing the game from a programming standpoint only gets you so far: unless you want to change the minimum required specs, and in the process lose some sales, you're going to have some people playing on systems that will lag no matter what.

And beyond all that, I'd argue the game is already making compromises to try and allow lower-end machines to run it smoothly. I suspect the poor military AI you mentioned is due to not wanting turn-end waits to get any longer; a better military AI surely exists for the 1UPT system they now have switched to, but the trade-off was to make turn-end waits longer.

Bear in mind, I'm not actually defending these decisions. Games are made by companies, and they do need to turn a profit, but they could have easily bumped up minimum specs a bit, improved the AI, and had the game run just as smoothly while playing against the player sufficiently without needing to cheat as much. They could have done this and still made plenty of profit. Just go on Steam and see how many people play CiV at peak times. Tons. The loss of a few of them to ensure the game had a little better military AI wouldn't have been a problem.

The UI is the one area that is flawed and really could be made a little easier on us with just a bit more programming without any negative trade-offs. There exist mods that correct certain issues, like the Info Addict mod, that should not need to exist if the UI had been done right the first time around. I hate not having the diplomacy screen having an intuitive way to check relationships between civs when one comes to me with a request to attack someone else. Is the someone else allied with someone? Is the someone else about to be attacked allied with CSs I actually am trying to ally myself (in which case, war would prevent me from allying them)? It's a huge nuissance that this stuff is hard or impossible to get to when I get a end-of-turn pop up offer from another civ.

 

[Socratatus]

is that the games take too bloody long. game is immersive as hell and probably one of the most in-depth games I've played but I want to be able to finish a game in less than 5 hours. christ, I've been playing for almost 2 months and haven't finished a single game to the end either because,

1. I would already win by domination and it would just be a waste of time for me to the fight to the end
2. tried getting a science victory, spent almost the entire morning + afternoon and got fed up of how time consuming it was

im playing on the 1 land mass map type, and only at normal with 4 players (8 CS). the heck? am I doing something wrong?

Your problem is, you don`t know how to play in breaks. You try to do it all in one go. That`s not what this kind of game is. No Civ game, even Civ 5 have ever been super quick. They`re not meant to be quick, but to be enjoyed like eating a good meal, not a snack.

By the way Civ 5, on the fastest setting, is the fastest of the lot.

Play the game like a Man and quit whining.
Moderator Action: That sentence is not appropriate for this board.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lay_Lay]

Yeah! Sit and stare at 'Please Wait' like a man and don't whine!

 

[Hustapha Thool]

Just a tip... turning off animated combat shortens the game in real life hours immensely.

also... Late game I often click on the strategic map between turns or a few turns.

 

[siredgar]

Problems with this game:

1. Waiting for each turn can take up to 10 minutes on a Huge map with 16 civs in the late stages of the game. I noticed in my current game, it kinda gets stuck on Persia's turn for a while even though they only have a mid-sized empire and army. It only takes a few minutes to make my moves, so waiting for this long is inexcusable. I have a laptop with an AMD A10-4655M APU with Radeon HD Graphics 2.00GHz and 8GB RAM.

2. There are too many false end turns. And the camera keeps shifting to another unit even though I have active units where I just clicked.

3. You should be able to "turn off" diplomacy. I try to kill the time between turns watching TV or playing with my mobile phone, but then the stupid AI asks me to go to war with someone I have no interest in going to war with or offer a silly trade or want to renew an open border agreement. Trade and open border agreements should be automatically renewed on a turn-by-turn basis after the initial period until you cancel them.

 

[Firesmacker]

Just a tip... turning off animated combat shortens the game in real life hours immensely.

This. I discovered how to enable quick combat awhile back and it shortened my game immensely. Especially in later eras with bombers. I'll turn it off when popping a nuke just to find out exactly what units I destroyed and as a way to find out where to drop my next one. (Nothing like using a WMD for a scouting mission)

 

[primordial stew]

fix the stupid: 'your worker forgot what he was doing' while you are at it.

I think that this is the "wake on danger" interrupt, which is something they did improve *some* recently, but if I'm right then it's still not working correctly. Fixing whatever is causing this would speed things up a bit.