1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Three Main Problems With Civ5

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by krasny, Aug 11, 2013.

  1. krasny

    krasny Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    What's your AI turn time on a standard size world at 2000AD?

    I'm afraid I do not know what "jimmies" are or why rusling them would make me boil with rage in your imagination.

    Post your three major flaws of Civ4 in the Civ4 forum, I would be very interested to read them.
     
  2. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    Here's what Wikipedia says about autism: "These disorders are typically characterized by social deficits [don't settle near them or they'll freak out, don't declare friendship or the others will hate you, best to not mess with them at all], communication difficulties [that's what you described in your post], stereotyped or repetitive behaviors [surprise, here's another one of Monty's totally unexpected backstab attacks] and interests, and in some cases, cognitive delays [here's my swordman, do you really want to put your bowman next to it?].

    And I really don't want to make fun of a topic as severe as autism, but especially in it's early days the AI in Civ V reminded me a lot of the "Rainman" guy...
     
  3. krasny

    krasny Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Autistic is a very good description of diplomacy AI in Civ5.
     
  4. _invy_

    _invy_ Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Bosnia
    Slow turn times can be fixed with some game settings, optimization and better computer.

    Diplomacy could be better but its at acceptable level in BnW, at least for me.

    Tactical AI - still biggest fail, gotta agree with that. That was the reason I left Civ 5 and went back to Civ4 at start of the game.
     
  5. raatmarien

    raatmarien Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    You mean 3.14Ghz right?

    As for your problems with civ 5, I agree with problem 1 and 2, ai sucks at combat and late-game load time is annoying. However, i think that load time is a needed sacrifices to make such an awesome and complex game and I can deal with the ai being bad with combat.

    In contrary to you I think civ 5 has way better diplomacy than civ 4.

    In the end civ 5 has problems, but its still a great game IMO.
     
  6. OneFootInThe...

    OneFootInThe... Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    kuzelj
    The main problem with Civ V is that it is boring. Main reason I am not playing it, but it is good enough for plenty people so from that aspect I think overall the game is still good enough for the design studio.

    It would be great if there was a civ game which is great for both a demanding user (mostly old userbase, as there is quite a bit of older followers of the series still around, who are not exactly satisfied with Civ V, like me ) and for a novice to the series, but we have to wait.

    Fortunately Civ V is doing well enough that I can imagine a sequel again, the only issue is what will this sequel be like - even more like Civ Rev or something with good scaling AI wise, great MP support etc. Sadly I expect closer to Civ Rev, as it is "good enough" to make money and a strong design with would satisfy more demanding users does not necessarly need to mean a successful game financially, so perhaps we will never know, but instead we live in hope.

    It is also amazing that those "not good enough" threads are still being made. I guess the game is good enough to amass enough of a following to keep it alive quite some time after it was first released.
     
  7. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    That is kind of ironic, when you think about it. Even though there are a lot of people who were disappointed with Civ V, and aren't happy with it, everyone should be thankful that there is a different lot of people who love Civ V and think it is a great game, since that could ensure that a Civ 6 is likely. Now, if they could create a game that makes both camps happy, they will really have a winner!
     
  8. MerchantCo

    MerchantCo Merchant

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Messages:
    394
    Location:
    Venice
    Exactly what rschissler said...
     
  9. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,314
    I'd question both how much that's either true of the AIs (except the don't settle near them bit), and to what extent that qualifies as a "social deficit". "I don't like you because you're friends with my enemies" seems a pretty neurotypical behaviour to me, and I don't imagine most real-world border tensions are sparked by autistic leaders either.

    If that's a reference to my point that autistic people can be overly rational, I find it an intriguing perspective that this is itself a communication difficulty. Not necessarily an incorrect one by any means, but definitely a point meriting further investigation.

    While in Civ IV, um, "here's another one of Monty's totally unexpected backstab attacks"?

    You can't simultaneously complain about an AI being both erratic and overly predictable... I agree with the above characterisation of the way the AI works (indeed I pointed specifically to stereotyped behaviours), I just took exception to the same post describing an "erratic" AI as "autistic", since autistic behaviour is anything but.

    Civ IV did that too - that moving catapult stacks near a superior stack of horsemen is a real example from my games.

    One of these days I'll have to watch that film.
     
  10. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    I can't? Well, I guess I can - and I do, especially if the AI is so predictable in it's pointless erratic-ness... ;)

    You should, absoultely! :)
     
  11. paulcarri

    paulcarri Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    512
    Hmm reluctant to comment in this thread as i find nastiness on the internet so pointless, but i am curious

    As of yet im on vanilla, my turn times are not TOO bad and im at 1800 ad now..i have to play small maps though- but thats ok

    Is BNW significantly slower than vanilla? I might just get G&K if so.

    I dont know if the AI has improved with expansions, but its use of units is terrible in vanilla, already ive had them march ranged units right upto me, and sail embarked land units right past my ships during war.
     
  12. the343danny

    the343danny Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    What do you guys think about the economy and empire building? I find it severely lacking and one dimensional next to Civ 4's counterpart. I really dislike the happiness system and trading posts, as well as the fact that higher population = more science. Building my empire used to be my favorite part of Civ 4 but it's just so dull in Civ 5.

    As for the AI, I agree completely with the OP. It really kills the replayability of the game. There really isnt much point arguing for the AI in Civ 5 because even Mr. Shafer admits to screwing that part up.

    Diplomacy is a wreck because of the AI. Also, it would be nice if I could make vassals. I really dislike killing off the AIs and expanding too much because it makes the game extremely lifeless but it really can't be helped, especially with the eratic AI DOWing me en masse regardless of what I do, at some point in the game. It was fun in the previous Civ for me to create vassals to help fight my wars. Not to mention, it was really interesting seeing my vassal nations grow and prosper under my guidance; vassals were essential for me when it came to roleplaying my nation. It also helped reduce late game micromanagement by a huge amount.

    @ MerchantCo and others, we provide criticism and list things we think would improve the game because many of us care about the franchise, including Civ 5. Telling us to leave is fairly disrespectful.
     
  13. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    Completely agree.
    Well, for me the game is backstep in so many areas:
    I totally loved the DRM-free / no copy protection coplete version of the predecessor => Steam.
    I loved the different leaders with their different characters, their reliable feedback on how they liked you, the rather competent (although far from perfect) way the AI played the game => Well, the Civ V AI has been discussed to death, nothing to add here.
    I loved the history in a nutshell approach of Civ IV, the way each game element was rootet (although sometimes heavily simplified) in real world history, the easy way you could recreate a historic scenario - and when you played it, it felt like a table-top model of the real thing. => Now we have immersion-breaking stuff like city states or AI telling us they hate us for winning the game the same way they do - and many more gamey but surreal mechanics. Which might be cool and interesting stuff for strategy gamers - but for me diminishes the "history simulation" heritage of the Civ franchise. And if you have a look at real world powers: size matters. The bigger the empire, the more powerfull (Rome, Britain, China, USA, USSR). Swiss is a cool little country, but will never rule the world. Simple as that. So from a history point of view the whole "tall vs. wide" discussion and how the one has to be balanced against the other for me is complete nonsense.
    These are my two cents - and no wall of text trying to rationalize how wrong my opionion is, will make any difference. It's still my opinion... ;)
     
  14. the343danny

    the343danny Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    In fact it's Civ 4's approach that got me so interested in history. Thats one of my big reasons that I'm a bit sad that Civ 5 took a different approach. I thought now that Mr. Shafer said that his AI approach was flawed, the new BNW expansion would lead to Civ 5 to regain the more world like approach but unfortunately it has not. Perhaps the next of the series would be different; it would be suprising if it kept the Civ 5 approach because it seems a good majority of forum goers does not like the current "autistic" AI.

    The tall vs wide discussion could be settled with arguing over whether to use gold maintenance or unhappiness to check expansion. In Civ 4, I enjoyed how REXing (rapid expansion for those unfamiliar with forum terms) meant simply that my country would be very backwards... for a while, until land developement and better administration with things like courthouses enables you to eventually surge ahead. It is a matter of risk versus reward. On the contrast, the unhappiness mechanic from overexpanding is simply unfun. Would anybody who is fairly satisfied with Civ 5 as it is disagree? I would like to get an opinion.

    Civ 5 could become a great game in my eyes with a critical expansion focusing on the base economy and tweaks to AI and new diplomatic options. However, I don't think that will happen because both G&K and BNW added additional mechanics like trade routes rather than changing the core gameplay elements.
     
  15. paulcarri

    paulcarri Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    512
    As someone who played BTS literally to death (i quit at immortal because it forced a game style i didnt like) i agree on the AI in 4

    They did feel like they had personalities.. and when you traded successfully with them, fought alongside them etc.. you really felt like you were forging an alliance with them.. a friendship.

    Thats why i was horrified to read that the AI hates you for 'trying to win the same way as them' because the ai is not supposed to 'think' its a game!

    Its hard to explain...but i want immersion with real feeling characters around me.


    But, i cant agree BTS AI was competent.


    It handled combat better, because i imagine its an awful lot easier to get the ai to build the right sort of stacks (although ive still had shaka etc land 20 catapults and no actual melee)

    But a couple of times i got bored and opened world builder... and the ai was building totally inappropriate things, and often picked absurd civics if it got early MIDS etc.


    The difficulty on civ has always been based on bonus's imho, and the ai has always been incompetent. It is just highlighted more with 1UPT i think

    I think 1upt influenced an awful lot of the game..
     
  16. b7fanatix

    b7fanatix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    178
    I've not played Civ 4, only the original MS-DOS Civ, Civ V Vanilla and G&K, but it sounds like Civ V could do with a dose of this treatment.

    In three quarters of the games I eventually get backstabbed by a former ally, despite having given them zero reasons to hate me. The arrival of their Unique Unit makes them think they have an opportunity to steal some of my land, and opportunity wins out over principle every time. I can deal with these attacks, and usually profit from them, but such faithlessness from EVERY SINGLE leader is quite depressing. Also, having done it once, they will keep backstabbing over and over - the only way to stop this harassment is to cripple them by capturing their strongest cities - then they will hate you for the rest of the game for being a warmonger, taking their capitol etc. - but will be too weak to do anything other than denounce.

    I agree that having some "black hat" villans and bad boys makes the game more exciting, but every leader should not behave like this.

    An example of my games -

    I play peacefully looking for a science win. I meet one of my neighbours, they are friendly, there are no negative modifiers. I do not settle within 8 tiles of any of their cities. I offer them open borders, defensive pacts, give them unused lux and resources, i loan them money when needed to keep up a steady stream of research agreements. I friend their friends, denounce their enemies and declare war on Civs they are fighting, using my small but well-teched army to help their campaigns. When they ask for help in the way of resources or cash, i provide it. Yet despite having 6 or so positive modifiers and no negatives, the usual result is backstab. It ends badly for them, but that's beside the point. I'd like the game to recognise that degree of loyalty. The AI doesn't even stand to gain anything by attacking me - want my Aluminum? All they had to do was ask for it.

    In the 20th century at least, such disloyal behaviour was rare. Yes, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a Backstab, because they were formally "allies", since the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, you have to bear in mind

    a) Stalin and Hitler were the two biggest douches the world has ever seen. In Civ terms, this is like Atilla and Dido being allied. You expect one to betray the other very soon.

    b) Hitler covets the other's land, and they have a contested border

    c) Incompatible ideologies

    d) Have been to war in the past

    e) only a few turns ago were denouncing and plotting against one another.

    It should have surprised no-one.

    What i experience in Civ 5 games however, is more akin to

    a) At the end of WW II, America nuking London and invading the UK as soon as Germany surrenders. Because they have a larger army than us, the British Forces are overseas, therefore there is nothing to stop them.

    b) Alternatively, the UK detonating a nuke over Cape Canaveral just as Apollo 11 is about to launch, with more nukes over Washington DC and NYC because we're upset about them getting ahead technologically.
     
  17. paulcarri

    paulcarri Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    512
    ive just read the interview with shafer and he pretty much admits he screwed up the ai-human interaction, but im still enjoying the game so far... and havent booted bts back up since getting it.
     
  18. b7fanatix

    b7fanatix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    178
    This tale kind of underlines my point. As a human, reading about your behaviour in game, i'd say you've been a scheming, manipulative warmonger. You used the Aztecs as pawns - they should hate you for it. Indeed, you could argue that a lot of the hate for the west in the middle east comes about because of the proxy wars of the cold war era.

    I'd tried to be a fully loyal ally to my in game friend, in the same way that the USA or Canada was to the UK in WWII, being quite happy to help them take over the planet while i work towards a science victory - yet they reward by trying to kill me , because my army is away from home HELPING THEM.
     
  19. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    There sure are better solutions than global happiness. In an "empire-building" game the question should never be "Should I actually build an empire or not?" - it always should be "How do I build my empire?". Btw. also something J.S. himself acknowledged in his recent statements. Although I generally am a peacefull player, I think it makes sense the game actually pushes you towards expanding forcefully if you missed out in the land-grabbing phase. Size should matter and the really interesting part is how to balanced growth vs. advance vs. defense. The Civ V approache of "whoops my land area is so small - but never mind, let's just go tall" feels kind of cheap. Civ is and always was a map (= territory) based game. Take away the importance of the map and you rip away a huge chunk of the games heart and soul.
     
  20. gps

    gps King

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    "Rather competent" for an AI in a commercial and short lived piece of entertainment software.
    "Rather competent" for the highly complex game it was put into.
    "Rather competent" in comparison to it's predecessors.
    It's still stupid AI, I won't start a dispute over that...
     

Share This Page