Thinking of trying civ 5 again.

[Andoo]

MP is a core aspect of the game, and there isn't much subjectivity in saying it's broken; doing things like ending turn or playing the game without it crashing/losing connection (current problems) are pretty paramount to play in a TBS title.

I'm quite sure many will agree with you that the game's MP is quite broken. But whether someone considers MP as a core aspect or not can be subjective. I consider Civ 5 as a SP game with optional MP which makes its lack of MP polish tolerable. If MP was broken for games such as LoL, HoN, or SC2 I would've called them broken without a doubt. On the other hand I don't mind at all that LoL has almost no SP aspect for example.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Quite honestly, I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't contain "broken" elements. With regards to CiV I've never suffered any of the serious issues that people have cited, such as the crashes and inability to run on recommended specs (my comp ain't fantastic), but in terms of gameplay yes the AI has done some odd things here and there, but I can honestly say most of the time it's decisions seem to make sense.

I've figured out how diplo works now, pretty much - I kind of get the various motivations (and no I didn't need to use the XML info to guide me). As such, considering my style of play, what I understand of how the AI generally behaves, diplomacy ends up being one of the more enjoyable aspects of the game.

Meh.
For me, diplomacy ends up being one of the more irrelevant aspects of the game. The benefits of putting effort into maintaining diplomatic standing just don't come near to matching the opportunity costs.

That, I think, at least qualifies for "subjectively broken."

I *do* like that it seems less exploitable, but it feels like it's gone too far the other way: that playing the diplomatic game equates to letting the AI exploit me instead. So I don't bother with it, and let the denouncements fall where they may.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm quite sure many will agree with you that the game's MP is quite broken. But whether someone considers MP as a core aspect or not can be subjective. I consider Civ 5 as a SP game with optional MP which makes its lack of MP polish tolerable. If MP was broken for games such as LoL, HoN, or SC2 I would've called them broken without a doubt. On the other hand I don't mind at all that LoL has almost no SP aspect for example.

Some games favor one or the other, but believe it or not sc2 has a good if short SP campaign and there is a decent chunk of that community that never plays competitive MP or rarely does so.

Regardless, for something like league of legends (IIRC this is like DOTA, yes?) it's a 5 on 5 design from go and highly complicated with the people who created it having limited resources in the case of DOTA...does it advertise SP? Civ V advertises MP and there are quite a few people who are not happy that such a feature advertised as existing has yet to function so.

 

[teks]

someone else posted about the head designer being more combat orientated. I just didn't feel like digging around for his name. I just agree.
I've read a lot of the 'Civ 5 sucks' rants, and a very important point I learned from those threads is that civ 4 vanilla was also pretty lame, and when civ 4 first came out it was pretty weak compared to civ3, and it's expansions, but now its king.

If only we could have the combat system from civ 5 mixed with the builder system from civ 4. At least civ 5 has a devoted team behind it. They didn't just force bad medicine down our throats, and leave. They are working hard to make it right. It can't be easy to make such a radical change work right.

RIP to all the great strategy games that died trying to make the game easier.
Empire Earth, Master of Orion, Gansters... Heres to hoping civilization doesn't make that list.

 

[Civ4Brains]

Meh.
For me, diplomacy ends up being one of the more irrelevant aspects of the game. The benefits of putting effort into maintaining diplomatic standing just don't come near to matching the opportunity costs.

That, I think, at least qualifies for "subjectively broken."

I *do* like that it seems less exploitable, but it feels like it's gone too far the other way: that playing the diplomatic game equates to letting the AI exploit me instead. So I don't bother with it, and let the denouncements fall where they may.

Thats cool, at least we can both agree this comes down to the user's experience of the game. I am curious though, what sort of opportunities costs do you mean? Do you lose something by paying some attention to diplo? and in what way is it an effort to maintain diplomacy without jeopardising these potential opportunities?

The funny thing is I find one of the benefits of paying attention to diplomacy ie. reduced no. of DoW's, friendship blocs, steady trade etc. (generally maintaining the peace) is that I create more time to focus on building my empire - the one thing that a lot of people are saying CiV fails to deliver on. Surely that's a good thing, no?

Now I know this apparent failing is based upon a comparison to previous incarnations in the series and to be fair the only other Civ I've played is IV, but I've played my fair share of CiV games in which it was clear - having the soundest infrastructure by the late game was my means to victory, not militaristic domination. I get why people call CiV a wargame, but it's not like you have to play it in this manner.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Thats cool, at least we can both agree this comes down to the user's experience of the game. I am curious though, what sort of opportunities costs do you mean? Do you lose something by paying some attention to diplo? and in what way is it an effort to maintain diplomacy without jeopardising these potential opportunities?

Passing up good city sites to avoid the penalty for 'reckless settling' or "we covet your land." Passing up wars of expansion to avoid the warmonger hits. Passing up wonders - especially around Egypt, to avoid that hit. Loss of gold/trade options when 'friends' ask for help, and not many other opportunities to make positive in-roads without opening myself up to that.

And there's just being distracted by the 'mental clutter' of trying to remember what will and won't annoy the AI (and which AI's I actually care about not annoying vs which ones I want to keep on good terms) - which is admittedly an issue of my own playstyle/skill-level/personality.

In the end, I just find I get similar results to not-caring as I do if I try to pay attention. I get some decent trades early on before the negatives from "trying to win the game" build up too high, and when it starts to peter out I'm either in a dominant position or too far behind for "fair" trades to catch me up anyway so it doesn't matter.

So there's no real feedback to show if I am improving on that side of the game, and likewise no incentive to try improving.

The funny thing is I find one of the benefits of paying attention to diplomacy ie. reduced no. of DoW's, friendship blocs, steady trade etc. (generally maintaining the peace) is that I create more time to focus on building my empire - the one thing that a lot of people are saying CiV fails to deliver on. Surely that's a good thing, no?

Heh. The ironic part is that, for me, juggling the diplomacy creates more mental clutter that distracts my focus on building my empire that I just don't see that particular benefit. Friendship blocs are (mostly) just an excuse for us to start begging off each other instead of trading with each other. And if I get a DoW... well, the timing might not be ideal for me but it saves me the trouble of declaring on him.

Now I know this apparent failing is based upon a comparison to previous incarnations in the series and to be fair the only other Civ I've played is IV, but I've played my fair share of CiV games in which it was clear - having the soundest infrastructure by the late game was my means to victory, not militaristic domination. I get why people call CiV a wargame, but it's not like you have to play it in this manner.

There is a bit of Past History on my part as well.
My preferred strategy in Civ3, which I carry somewhat to Civ4, involved early conquest of my landmass then buckling down to semi-peaceful end-games. But in previous games, the AI was more... forgiving? of early conquest.

 

[Putmalk]

I have not played a game of civ 5 since the december patch I am thinking of giving it another shot but I have a few questions.

1. Has the broken diplo system been fixed

2. How is the combat ai, is it at least better im not looking for a huge change just siege behind the army and slightly better use of units

3. have there been any major changes I should be aware of

Thanks to all who answer my questions.

You'd be surprised, I hated this game, especially around the same time, but now I decided to give it another go and it's quite entertaining - flaws still need to be worked out but I may actually dish out for DLC now....

1. Yes and no. It makes some tangible sense now, but it's mostly based around exploitation of the AI. Major changes still need to be done here.
2. Much better, the combat AI can be competitive, to a degree. You can't just run around with like 3 units and slaughter them, they're more effective at protecting troops.
3. Yeah, they did a massive balance pass that completely changed most of the starting policies and buildings throughout. Buildings are worth building and really beneficial. You also can't ICS and stuff.

I'd give it another go if I were you. You might like it.