The root cause of all the problems...

[amelie]

It was just the thread title. Noone read the rest of your post because they were too busy formulating their arguments against you.

Yes most likely...

.....
I think the major problems stem simply from them redoing the whole thing from scratch rather than building on the series. 1upt and hexes added to this but i'm not sure it was the main cause of it.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Sure you could - and people did - argue that there are other things not related to Hex and 1upt.

But my guess is that was the starting point and from all that flow a whole new coding effort..... of everything....

 

[man-erg]

It's hard to pin down exactly what the root cause is as everything depends on everything else. My view is that the single one thing wrong with Civ 5 is City States! I agree that the basic mechanics of the previous 4 versions has been more radically changed than ever before, but I think this has less to do with hexes and 1UT than City states. City growth depends on getting the over-powered and unbalanced freebies from the city states. I tried playing with no city states as interracting with them irritates me - it seems like a "whack-a-mole" mini game. But the game doesn't work without them as it seems the cheap food from the CS has been countered by low food production tiles.

Hexes are OK, but they really don't add any *substantial* strategy. I think they're more of a gimmick than adding real gameplay value. 1UT is good, but I would like to have achieved it by allowing merging of units into 1 counter/unit. e.g. merge 3 swordsmen into 1 swordsman counter with 3 * the abilities.

Also, a whole branch of Social Policies is for city states. Some buildings and wonders relate to them...much as there are aspects of 5 that I prefer to 4, switching off CS means you may as well go back to 4.

What baffles me is that as there is now LESS micromanagement in Civ 5 (which is generally a good thing), the AI should be more effective and faster. Think about it: far less units, squares have 8 exits, hexes 6 so pathfinding should be quicker, less cities, less details all round than Civ 4, but still the AI turn is dramatically slower. How come?

Overall, Civ 5 seems like a repeat of Civ 3. Made some risky, radical changes from a previously brilliant version. Some good, some not so good, with the changes causing serious unbalance in places. Perhaps like Civ 4, Civ 6 will be the one that refines to a true masterpiece?

 

[warhead66]

If you haven't bought the game yet it seems just a tiny bit arrogant to conclude its main faults on everyone's behalf doesn't it? . . .

 

[PieceOfMind]

hmm.. some poeple understood what i meant and fairly argued their point... others not so fairly.

others were unable to comprehend what I meant and wondered why i was against hexes or 1upt.

ho hum

Welcome to Civ5 General Discussions.

 

[Blackadar]

Now, i haven't bought it yet, I am waiting for patches and praying for removal of STEAM requirements, however I am willing to accept there are going to be some issues because they have had to write a completely new game.

Your (uninformed) opinion is duly noted.

And since Civ V will probably always have Steam, I suppose you'll be waiting for a long, long time to have an informed opinion. So in the meanwhile, please feel free to make more sweeping statements about a subject you know almost nothing about.

 

[kazapp]

The cause of everyone's problems with CIV 5 is essentially the two things everyone thought was pretty cool when first heard.

1. Hex
2. No Stacks.

Those two excellent choices basically threw away 4 versions and 20 years of development. All the previous versions were essentially similar games with engines and AI that just kept improving upon other versions.

I believe you are simply wrong.

Each Civ game is most certainly created from the ground up. It is unlikely each Civ team gets/wants to re-use AI code from previous editions.

In other words, the AI of Civ5 is no harder (or easier) to write than any previous edition.

Don't blame the hexes and one-unit limits for the poor showing of Civ5 so far. Blame the programmers or their bosses.

 

[man-erg]

In other words, the AI of Civ5 is no harder (or easier) to write than any previous edition.

Shouldn't the streamlined gameplay actually make the AI easier to write? I haven't noticed anybody else pick up on this yet.

In Civ5 we have many *much* simpler game mechanisms than in 4. Sure,fewer units means more tactics required than a SOD. But why is the AI so much slower at mismanaging a fraction of the units it had to worry about in Civ4? There is no religion for the AI to worry about, a culture victory is so much easier than 5, no city micromanagement required. Far fewer techs makes the space race easier. And a hex has only 6 exits, but a square has 8 so pathfinding and unit moving should be easier and faster.

The AI turns should be even faster than in Civ4 as there is little extra for the civs to 'think' about and a whole lot taken out.

 

[spoooq]

And a hex has only 6 exits, but a square has 8 so pathfinding and unit moving should be easier and faster.

When a stack is moved, only a single path has to be calculated (using the movement of the slowest unit). Conversely, 1UPT requires lots of paths to be calculated. Not only that, but dynamic obstacles (other AI units) are much harder to route around than static ones, which are simply a dead-end branch of the tree.

 

[PieceOfMind]

When a stack is moved, only a single path has to be calculated (using the movement of the slowest unit). Conversely, 1UPT requires lots of paths to be calculated. Not only that, but dynamic obstacles (other AI units) are much harder to route around than static ones, which are simply a dead-end branch of the tree.

This is spot on.

I think a lot of people don't realise how many trivial little calculations they do every time they move units in a 1upt system, that a computer must have either a clever or brute-force way of doing. It's like the difference between trying to do a jigsaw puzzle and simply throwing the jigsaw puzzle pieces across the room.

 

[Kietharr]

Hexes were a pretty large improvement, but 1UPT destroyed the AI's ability to make war. Let's face it, civ AI has never exactly been Deep Blue quality but the high difficulty production and tech bonuses were enough to keep them dangerous. Tech trading kept them VERY dangerous especially with WFYABTA setting in against the human.

Now in addition to the AI being REALLY stupid, like stupid enough to make a vanilla civ 3 AI /facepalm in disbelief, Firaxis has completely negated two of their advantages. Production bonus does not matter because

1. Buildings cost money to maintain, so you can only have a limited amount of them anyways.
2. There are no units worth producing en masse that can be produced en masse until Gunpowder. Most games are decided before that point.
3. 1UPT means that even if you could produce said units en masse, there just is not enough room to abuse them.

So generally this just ends in the AI using that production bonus in producing an army of 40 archers and spearmen that get killed by 2 horsemen and a few swordsmen in 5 turns.

Tech bonus does not matter because

1. AI chooses VERY stupid tech paths.
2. AI can not trade with other AI that chose slightly different stupid tech paths

In civ4 the AI teched like idiots too, they LOVED feudalism when it was one of the most expensive lackluster techs out there, only producing longbows who were only good for defense and everyone knows only chumps fight a defensive war. They would often go for guilds before getting the mace techs even if they didn't have horses. BUT they could trade these techs to other AI and in effect give the AI an absolutely immense tech boost over the player. In civ5 the AI simply work independently making their own silly tech choices while the smart human techs military and rolls over them like nothing.

My main problem with civ5 is that it is just WAY too easy, on all difficulties. It's not fun because there's not even the slightest chance of me losing almost every game I played, I had decided all of them prior to the ADs. The only way I could keep the game competitive was by holding myself back, sandbagging for a computer. And simply put, that's not fun.

 

[King_Course]

The cause of everyone's problems with CIV 5 is essentially the two things everyone thought was pretty cool when first heard.

1. Hex
2. No Stacks.

Those two excellent choices basically threw away 4 versions and 20 years of development. All the previous versions were essentially similar games with engines and AI that just kept improving upon other versions.

Now, i haven't bought it yet, I am waiting for patches and praying for removal of STEAM requirements, however I am willing to accept there are going to be some issues because they have had to write a completely new game.

I'm looking forward to learning a new game that will hopefully (eventually) cause the same addiction as previous versions.

So, I accept, I thought the changes were cool and thus I must be patient for the game to develop a little more.

Cheerio

Edit: I am referring here to a rather large change to the software causing all the problems as it is a brand spanking new development.

Hexes and no stacking haven't thrown any years of development away. They are excellent directions to go both of them. And tbh how the community put up with the Stack of Doom (Here comes the Red Army in a telephone box) is beyond me.

Now there are problems, it´s with the AI. It's not good enough. Is it dumber than previous Civ games? No, the combat is harder. So it makes more mistakes.

Diplomatics are also critisised, but I'm beginning to sense there are mechanisme implemented that are actually subtle, yet still dictating the AI. For example people say the AI kill all the City States. But at the same time the strategy preferred atm is to make allies of all city states and live of their tribute. Maybe he kills your allies on purpose, what if you played a game where you weren't making allies of every state?

Lastly stacking can be a problem for logistics, maybe it could be a good idea to allow stacks of 2 units, but only allowing them 0.75 strength each. This way they dont block each other on roads, and still will be stronger separated in combat. Stacking problems is part of what makes the AI dumb.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I haven't seen 1 post that doesn't like hexes...

 

[tom2050]

Now in addition to the AI being REALLY stupid, like stupid enough to make a vanilla civ 3 AI /facepalm in disbelief, Firaxis has completely negated two of their advantages.

Ha! And we all know what Firaxis did with Civ 3 AI (which is actually better than Civ 5 AI), they made artillery that AI doesn't use, broke Armies AI in the expansion, and some other tidbits that are moderate problems (questionable build choices, ships, air). Not only that, Firaxis KNEW about these problems and decided to ignore them forever and not fix them.

So don't expect Firaxis to fix the AI in any large meaningful way. They themselves would most likely want to (I would think)... but not with 2K around they won't be able to.

 

[Athrael]

It's like the difference between trying to do a jigsaw puzzle and simply throwing the jigsaw puzzle pieces across the room.

That comment won my day And it's so true!


to me Civ V is like a really really gorgeous person who just happens to be utterly clueles with the brainpower of a bipolar snail..

No offense to snails.. or gorgeous persons! or .. bipolars.. I guess

 

[Tregon]

Diplomatics are also critisised, but I'm beginning to sense there are mechanisme implemented that are actually subtle, yet still dictating the AI. For example people say the AI kill all the City States. But at the same time the strategy preferred atm is to make allies of all city states and live of their tribute. Maybe he kills your allies on purpose, what if you played a game where you weren't making allies of every state?

No, this just underlines how pathetic AI is. So guy with big army is buddies with all CS...
What should I do... Oh yes! All I know is WAARRRRRR!!!! Thus, DoW and end up screwed.

Diplomacy is so dumbed down that it is not even funny. AI is not doing "the sensible thing". AI is just trying to win the game through conquest, never anything else.
Competing for CS favor? Naahhh. Opting to go for heavy science route? Naahhh.
Up the culture output? Naahhh.

We have diplomatic victory, cultural victory, science victory, points victory... But all AI knows and cares about is conquest.

AI is as intelligent, subtle and varied as an average ork from Warhammer 40K.