To All Of You That Think Civ V Is Boring...

[Deathwish238]

I know why you feel this way. It's not the game's mechanics...no, I'm happy with most of the changes. The only elements I really miss are religion and espionage. However, I most certainly do not miss Stacks of Doom.

The reason many find this game is boring is because the A.I. is horrendous. Plain and simple. In Civ IV, the A.I. was engaging and could beat you if you were not careful. Now, the A.I. is pathetic...easy to beat militarily. But that's not all, the A.I.'s diplomacy is horrible. It hardly is diplomacy at all.

With many games, the A.I. doesn't matter too much. If it's bad, then no big deal you'll just play with other people. However with a game that normally takes 8+ hours, playing against A.I. is far easier to setup than playing with multiple people. So here the A.I. being completely lackluster really stands out. Without a challenging A.I. and a diplomatically fun A.I., there isn't too much fun to be had other than facerolling over the entire map.


So the solution is simple...either Firaxis or the modding community needs to come up with better A.I. to be used in both Single player and Multiplayer.

 

[Leif Roar]

The reason many find this game is boring is because the A.I. is horrendous.

Not the reason in my case. I've never been all that interested in competing and warring with the AI in the first place.

 

[Camikaze]

Bad AI is a pretty good catch-all reason for people not liking the game, I would think. There are of course other reasons, but it seems to me that a lot of them boil down to bad AI. Regardless of whether or not it's the primary reason for complaint, improved AI would no doubt make the game less boring for almost everyone.

 

[Eberon]

If you improve the AI will I stop falling asleep while endlessly clicking end turn?

 

[MkLh]

Nah, the AI is one thing, but the real problem is in game mechanics. Unless you count poor diplomacy as an AI problem.

 

[pagh80]

You are correct that the main problem is the AI. If the AI was good, people would like this game much more.

Take a game like starcraft 2. Its extremely popular because of its multiplayer part. It has everything. But the AI in that game also stinks. If you were forced to play it in singleplayer mode only, alot of people would say the game sucked. Luckily SC2 main focus is not the singleplayer part so its not a big deal for that game. Unfortunatelly its very important in a civ game, where you normally play singleplayer instead of multiplayer.
If they never manage to improve the AI the game will keep the current reputation no matter how many other things they improve over time.

 

[Aedn]

Its not the AI's fault completely, yes the game is boring because the AI is bad to some extent. its also that the game was simplified to the point where every game feels the same. The only real changes occur when you limit yourself , or select certain map types to create limitations.Two things offhand i can state, for myself at least, that are not AI related are below. The AI is a major issue,its not the only issue as to why the game is not living up to previous Civ games at the moment.

The simplified game mechanics, revolving around the tech tree basically means you make one choice, bottom or top. there is no driving need to research a particular tech in the game. There is no real choice to be made between military tech or culture tech, at a crucial junction in the game. There is no driving need to get a tech so you can obtain religion, or a wonder, or to obtain a civic improvement.

The simplified game mechanics revolving around Citystates, eliminates the need for tile management. maritime CS means food is plentiful, and cities have no real requirements for placement, outside of happiness resources. Cultural CS have the same impact on Culture buildings.

 

[eric_]

AI isn't great at tactics, it's true (although it's much improved since the new patch, imo).

Totally disagree that the diplomacy model is a problem, though. I've had some games with very interesting diplomatic aspects, including one game where I kept out of war but managed to get and keep everyone else on my continent fighting with one another. It's just a lot less explicit than it was in IV, which makes it hard to get a handle on at first.

 

[Pratputajao]

I'll tell ya' whats boring- these kind of threads. I mean hasnt all of this been said a dozen+ times already? Arent you guys getting sick and tired of complaining about this game? This has gotten so old.

 

[JimT]

If you improve the AI will I stop falling asleep while endlessly clicking end turn?

So you have completed a cultural victory as well, or was it science?

On the diplomatic front, I am reasonably happy with it. At first I never got attacked whatever - for example a cultural victory where I bordered Augustus the super bully and he didn' declare on me with my one warrior. Now I have realised they may take account of a bit more info (maybe cash reserves) before declaring. They also seem to be a bit more aware of the global politics rather than just religion as in Civ IV.

 

[Bandobras Took]

The simplified game mechanics, revolving around the tech tree basically means you make one choice, bottom or top.

At least there's a choice, since everybody and their dog seemed to go for Liberalism in Civ 4.

there is no driving need to research a particular tech in the game. There is no real choice to be made between military tech or culture tech,

Actually, I've been spanked before for ignoring military techs in favor of culture techs.

There is no driving need to get a tech so you can obtain religion, or a wonder, or to obtain a civic improvement.

Actually, that's more a function of difficulty level. At a difficulty level where you can consistently get wonders, you can plan around driving to get them early. And there are any number of slingshots people use to unlock the later-era social policies.

The simplified game mechanics revolving around Citystates, eliminates the need for tile management. maritime CS means food is plentiful, and cities have no real requirements for placement, outside of happiness resources. Cultural CS have the same impact on Culture buildings.

I must say, though, that I would have found Civ 4 boring if I had played the way everybody posted in their online games. "Get Slavery. Build Axemen. Conquer. Whip buildings. Bulb your way to Liberalism. Win game." Those also seem like simplified game mechanics.

 

[Zydor]

........The AI is a major issue,its not the only issue as to why the game is not living up to previous Civ games at the moment........The simplified game mechanics revolving around Citystates, eliminates the need for tile management. maritime CS means food is plentiful, and cities have no real requirements for placement, outside of happiness resources. Cultural CS have the same impact on Culture buildings.

IMHO its primarily the introduction of City States with their current modus operandi that has driven a coach and horses through the Civ Franchise central tenant of "Build an Empire to stand the test of time".

When you can get food, culture and military resources with almost zero effort via City States, and certainly without worrying unduly over placement and quality of your own city resources, it turns the game into a simplistic shoot-em-up. There are certainly issues with the AI and the terrible Diplomacy that dont help, but at a fundamental level, they take a back seat to the core-tenant breaking City States.

Warmongers et al will doubtless not visualise this issue, as Civ5 is now - at its core - a shoot-em-up, so they will be happy. They didnt care about any other aspect to the game anyway. Those who traditionally bought the Civ Franchise games for the Empire Builder Immersion away from simplistic "kill em all empire building", are not happy at all. There is more to building an empire in real life that blowing up all your neighbours. For sure no game can replicate real life empire building - too complex - however thats no excuse for reducing Civ5 and the Franchise to a simplistic shoot-em-up, and thats very sad.

I've logged nearly 400 hours of play since it came out, I have given it a real, real try with no prejudices, but Civ5 has taken a simplistic commercial shoot em up route, and has dumped the core essence of what made the Franchise - True Empire Building. Last night, I went back to a Civ4 game, and its was like a New Dawn, the immersion was back, the strategic choices, the feeling you were building something, and away from having to take part in silly "warrior rush" et al so called "strategies".

Maybe there's more to come, maybe this is a first stage in Civ5 and from the developers viewpoint need to settle it before moving on, I dont know, being kind to a Franchise I loved for 10+ years. I hope and pray there is more in the developer labs, because right now, the Civ Franchise has become an arcade shoot-em-up. Its good to try new things to move the Franchise forward, and new things can unsettle long standing players, but this is more than that, its changed the Franchise, and demeaned it. I hope Sid grips this personally again, else there will never be a Civ 6. it will be the end of the line.

Regards
Zy

 

[Haig]

I think Aedn and Zydor wrote it really well.

I've stopped the last few games of V out of boredom, and just fixing the A.I. is not going to get me return to it.

It really needs more strategies, options and details.
In Civ IV aiming for a cultural victory for example can have different tactics and situations, trying that out in V was the most boring Civ experience ever. Just slamming enter and trying not to get A.I.s to attack you.

Defenders of Civ V argue that it isn't simplified or dumbed down but at the moment I feel it is.

I need religion, espionage, more techs, civs and units, more strategies, United Nations that's not lame etc.

I dream that I can play Civ V alongside IV but I'm worried that 2k Games runs out of interest/cash before Civ V can match IV.

Also I'd like to point I'm not a veteran Immortal-level Civ IV player, I actually bought Civ IV Complete because I grew tired of Civ Rev and when I started reading about Civ IV BTS I was amazed how a Civ game would have so much details and options.
(ok I played Civ I & III long time ago but not so intensively).

 

[Zydor]

.......Defenders of Civ V argue that it isn't simplified or dumbed down but at the moment I feel it is......

Not dumbed down ..... rofl. You cant get more dumb than have a central tenant to game than "buying" culture, how utterly stupid.

With military resources, how did the City States get the wherewithall to make 'em? We spend the whole game with the concept that CS are weak and dont take too many or the AI will be hissed off, and then watch the AI take em at will - take the very organisations that magically produce weapon systems out of thin air, yet cant defend themselves ? Its a nonesense and an obvious game mechanic.

As for food, come on, its ridiculous. A small city state magically produces enough food to feed a global world wide empire ..... its utterly ridiculous, another obvious game mechanic bowing to shoot em up mentality and reduce the need to use the brain.

Then we have that freakin Robot at the end of the game .... where did that come from? Its clearly driven by drama needs for dorks. As one dev put it on a polycast "I always felt it needed the big super weapon to finish the game off" .... huh? .... dont tell me thats being driven by a concept of immersive empire building, its pure shoot-em-up.

From a developer viewpoint, having got rid of the complexities of Culture, Food, and manufacture of weapons systems, they can concentrate far less resource on building a shoot em up at a cheaper cost, and pandy to individuals thinking they are being terribly "strategic" manipulating so called "strategies" like "warrior rush", "horse rush" et al. Strategies my fiddlesticks, its game mechanics, nothing near military strategy. Pure tosh.

The Civ Franchise up to Civ IV was far from perfect, would always butt up against the complexities of real life, but it was "believable", certainly had the immersion factor, and could still be played as a shoot-em-up if the player wanted to. Civ5 has dumped Immersion Empire building, and gone for simplistic shoot-em-up because thats the bigger commercial market.

They will live off the Franhcise past reputation for the duration of Civ5 as people can still be conned into believing they are empire building - because thats traditionally what the Franchise did, so they play with that assumption. It will not be long before the simplistic structure of the game comes through after many tries with it, and it dawns on people the shallow level of the game now. Goodbye Civ6, will never happen, the shoot-em-up Brigade will either finally desert the Franchise, or push it into ever more stupid robots and super heros.

As it is currently, it will always suit the shoot-em-up genre of player, and thats fine, nothing wrong with shoot-em-ups if thats what you want. But as empire building - Civ5 is not. I dont blame Sid for letting go to commercial interests and taking a back seat, life is for living, and he put his heart and sole into the Franchise for over 20 years, he deserves his reward and I hope his opportunity to take more leisure time and a more self orientated life is successful, he has earned it.

Meanwhile back at the Franchise, the shoot-em-up developers are tearing down his creation because they know 70% of the market place out there wants simplistic dramatic shoot-em-ups. Using the brain to play sophisticated genuine strategy games is not commercially popular. Its been a great 20+ year ride, but its a shame that dumb commercialism has taken over and not allowed the Immersive Empire Building tenants to be built on and further improved. It was a great ride while it lasted.

Regards
Zy

 

[Aristos]

@Zydor:

I commend you for the honest disregard of the stupid political correctness. You summed the issue up very precisely. Congratulations!

The truth is the truth; of course the defenders will never accept that this is a dumbed down version, because accepting that puts them into a not-so-comfy position... it's that simple.

I agree with you in everything. I couldn't say it better. Now be prepared for the "Attack of the Clones"...

cheers,

rjg

 

[Akka]

The reason many find this game is boring is because the A.I. is horrendous. Plain and simple.

No.
The reasons why I think it's boring are, by order of importance :
- Lack of immersion (core concepts based on history are removed while completely artificial concepts are inserted as basis ; the AI act like players rather than like leader ; in general the game mechanics are based far too much on metagaming and not enough on "immersion/pseudo-realism").
- Lack of things to do and dumbing down (the streamlining removed most things interesting to take into account and to act upon).
- The transformation from "relive history" into "play some bad wargame" (empire building in the backgroung, war made preeminent).
- Game mechanics are full of holes.

The bad AI is not even in the main list to be honest. Not that it's not bad, just that all these reasons are even WORSE.

 

[DSChapin]

With military resources, how did the City States get the wherewithall to make 'em? We spend the whole game with the concept that CS are weak and dont take too many or the AI will be hissed off, and then watch the AI take em at will - take the very organisations that magically produce weapon systems out of thin air, yet cant defend themselves ? Its a nonesense and an obvious game mechanic.

As for food, come on, its ridiculous. A small city state magically produces enough food to feed a global world wide empire .....

The limitless food from Maritime CS's is probably the biggest single balance issue with the game. Military CS's producing units is perfectly reasonable, though: CS's (of any kind) produce units now, and the Military ones don't give them to you so often that they're being "produced out of thin air".

For that matter, the CS's usually defend themselves from the AI successfully, so I'm not sure why you're seeing them being conquered easily.

 

[learner gamer]

Just wanted to say well done Zydor. You’ve articulated very well IMHO precisely why fixing the AI and diplomacy won’t end the “boring” tag that gets applied to Civ 5 by some gamers. What making those fixes will almost certainly do instead is make Civ 5 a better war game – which is fine if that’s all someone wants Civ 5 to be.

What made Civ 4 so very addictive for me at least however, was best encapsulated by a piece of advice that I read some years ago in this forum: “that Civ is so much more than a wargame” (and I can’t tell you how many games I played where I found this out to my cost. ). Sadly though MHO, Civ 5 (in its current form) actually isn’t much more than a wargame...and that won’t change IMHO until the game is rebalanced so that it presents the civver with a richer, less extreme (in the sense that one option no longer so obviously dominates the others) menu of alternative paths to take / choices to make each turn.

@Bandobras Took: I see you civ4’s liberalism and raise you civ5’s horsemen...or should that be biology.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Duplicate Thread. Closed.

Please use this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394243