To those who have, up until now, not been happy with Civ V...

[Jade Wolf]

I have only tinkered with it post patch but so far it seems to be a big step in the right direction. I still think ICS would be stronger than building big citys however it is more viable now. My biggest beef with it is now I cant use the great MODs that some of the fine players here have developed. The whole steam thing realy bites, but no point crying about it becouse it isn't gonna go away.

I want to point out to some of the people who trash this game so hard, perhaps if you look closer at your stratagys and test new things you will see things in a new light. I thought the AI was also too warlike, then I checked my place in millitary strength and found I was near last. Now a make sure to stay in the top 1/3 of millitary strength and sure enough no one declares on me unless im realy doing a lot to piss them off. Check your military strength before you complain about it. If you don't think wealthy nations with small millitarys get mugged take a look at some history books, or not so long ago in Kuait.
As for the AI trying to win, well arent you doing the same thing. When you box them out of territory, snag all the wonders, horde all the resources they get unhappy with you. This is as it should be, they wanted those valuable spices too. I usualy play peacefully , however if some civ steals what I belive belongs to me, or even what I think my civ needs, I start working on my warplan.Why should the AI not be the same. So if you want civ rivals who sit back and do nothing about it while you dominate in every catagory and chose your win whimsicly at the end of the game just play on chieftan. The majority of us want Civs that will rival us.

 

[ori]

in the spirit of the holidays if you must, let's not attack or question people's opinions in this thread.

Moderator Action: @all: this is good advice (for all threads actually )

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I also wonder how long this simplistic - almost smug and childish - attitude will exist, trotting out this silly "whining" scenario everytime someone dare criticise the game

Yea but you see, whining and calling the game out for its flaws isn't the same thing, and plenty of people appear to believe it is. Its not.

Whining, is when people keep spamming the threads with comments like "Civ 5 suxors, you should all stop play it and go play Civ 4 just like me!" without actually giving any feedback on the game itself. That's not criticism, that's whining.

Criticism is when people take some single or many elements of the game and express their dislike of it, whining is when they repeatidly bash the game and keep stating how they will never play it regardless of any future changes to it while attributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion. People who do that are trolls, at best.

I don't like the latest Final Fantasy game, but I don't hang around on the Final Fantasy forums just the same so that I can write dozens of "Final Fantasy sucks b***" style comments all over the place like some attention grabber.

Moderator Action: calling other users trolls is unacceptable under all circumstances. Telling other users to leave the forums is unacceptable. Complaining about people complaining about the game in a thread in which they have been expressly asked to post is just trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bleser]

And really, guys? Are we STILL sniping at each other over opinions on a video game? That STILL hasn't gotten old? How long will some of you continue to indulge in that kind of behavior? I thought we'd have kind of grown out of that nonsense by now. Charon asked for opinions from people who were previously negative about the game; if those opinions are going to offend you so much that you can't control your own behavior, try reading another thread rather than making unconstructive personal attacks on others.

+1

It's so funny...

"I haven't played Civ V for a month..."
"I won't play Civ V again..."
"Civ V is a DLC cash cow and I won't play it..."

WHY THE HELL ARE YOU IN THE CIV V FORUMS THEN. Get lost!

It's the equivalent of just spending all day on the Honda forums telling all the owners how much you dislike their cars and won't buy/drive one ever again and you love your 1968 Buick Gremlin so much. Great, fine, live in the past and have a great time. These threads are so polluted with Civ-V bashing it is unreal. I've never seen so much effort go into telling people over and over and over why they don't like something.

For the OP, the Civ V patch is fantastic and I'm LOVING it. Balance changes are great thus far, and the diplo changes feel much more immersive. I've had to drop down to King difficulty and still have a tough time conquering cities. Babylon was on a hill and had a wall around it and it took three catapults, two archers and three swordsmen several turns to capture it - OVERWHELMING FORCE as it should be!

Great changes and loving the patch Firaxis - well done!!

Moderator Action: telling other users to get lost is absolutely and utterly unacceptable
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bryanw1995]

I haven't downloaded the patch yet, as I am still curious about especially the changes in the field of social policies and diplomacy.
So, I am waiting for more input.

Combat (seen as an isolated feature) seems to have been changed for the better, based on the first reactions.
Nevertheless, I haven't yet found out in which way it really fits into the overall scope now.

The infamous two new Natural Wonders (ED and FoY) just make me :facepalm:
And I don't care that they may not appear each time. The pure fact of how they have been set up makes me wonder about what is going on at Firaxis, to say the least.

I really wonder if Firaxis is still providing games for serious players.

Total: I will wait for more experience reports before I decide about bothering with downloading.

social policies are interesting, tradition is now very worthwhile for anything but true ics. you acquire tiles from culture faster, so a monument + landed elite will be enough for most cities to expand quite rapidly. piety is much more useful as well, a piety/tradition combo is quite strong especially for a smallish (10 cities or less) empire. meritocracy nerfed to only .5 happy per city so liberty isn't a "must always get" tree any more. I haven't gotten military tradition but I imagine that warmongers might go down the other branch of honor first. autocracy got an indirect bonus b/c liberty isn't always going to be sitting there blocking you from using it.

for combat overall, a strong core of 7-10 cities with a later game explosion will probably be a lot more common now than just steamrolling everybody. maybe not a 50/50 split still, but even on higher levels developing your cities will be very important. it's very difficult, even with unlimited iron ( I popped a 6 iron source as russia after beelining iron and getting mining on turn 2), to take out ai civs without losing units now. I had 6 swords vs a couple warriors and some archers in arabia and still lost a unit, then lost several more on the next civ with longswords, now I'm on to the largest remaining rival on my continent. haven't lost any units vs him yet, but he's doing a lot of damage and correcty focusing his fire on my weakest units. cities are much more difficult to take now, not only are you at +3 heal/turn with walls, but also terrain modifiers no longer work vs cities, archers -25% vs cities, horses -33% vs cities and nerfed down to 10 combat power. also, the lowered flanking bonuses and flat terrain penalty dropped to only -10% give the ai a big relative advantage when he stupidly moves his units into your wheelhouse.

I've only seen one "fantastic" wonder in each game I've played. current game has the +10 gold wonder, irroquois claimed that early and they still have it with one of their 2 remaining (isolated) cities. they traveled a long way to grab it before napoleon or darius could get it, too. I've only got one natural wonder close enough to settle near me, it's old faithful (so only +2 science). interestingly, old faithful is only nearby natural wonder I had last game as well. don't know if this is typical or not. generally the natural wonders are much more important now, worth going to war over a "normal" one in many cases and almost always worth it to prioritize the supernatural ones if they're remotely close. I know that a lot of people have criticized them, but unless you play spain honestly I think that they're more of an add than subraction to gameplay overall.

 

[LegioCorvus]

1 and 2 are pretty untrue now, as you can now make REAL relationships with the A.i.

3, ICS is still there but in a vastly reduced way. If you want real anti-ics, download a mod (when we're done fixing how the patch messed them up), the 3 huge ones do it fine.

4, yes, who knew you might actually need a siege weapon to siege a city

5, The FoY occurs in about one in 100 games. Seriously, it is rediculously rare, I've never seen it even while debugging my mod and using map reveals over and over.

In short, you really need to actually play the patch BEFORE you dis it

"Your greed of Wonders is hurting our relationship!"

"You're going for a similar victory condition!"

"You posses lands that I want."

Lands that they want... sure. I can almost expect that to be a immersive, real life diplomatic thing. But on turn 20 with no new cities? Eh... And I think we all remember when Rome conquered Egypt for the Pyramids. Sarcasm aside, these all drag me out of the game. Especially the victory condition one. I wont go into other details.

In fact, why am I defending my opinion on these at all? I thought this thread was for expressing our opinions on the game post-patch, not setting up ourselves for attack by people who are aggressively pro-Civ5.

 

[Sneaks]

+1

It's so funny...

"I haven't played Civ V for a month..."
"I won't play Civ V again..."
"Civ V is a DLC cash cow and I won't play it..."

WHY THE HELL ARE YOU IN THE CIV V FORUMS THEN. Get lost!

It's the equivalent of just spending all day on the Honda forums telling all the owners how much you dislike their cars and won't buy/drive one ever again and you love your 1968 Buick Gremlin so much. Great, fine, live in the past and have a great time. These threads are so polluted with Civ-V bashing it is unreal. I've never seen so much effort go into telling people over and over and over why they don't like something.

I think you completely misunderstood the person you quoted, and quite miraculously drew the exact opposite interpretation from it. What he and many other posters are trying to explain in this thread (which asks for all opinions, positive or negative) is to REFRAIN FROM AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

This is not difficult to do. Every poster after this, I implore you to follow these steps before hitting Submit Reply:

1. Reread your reply.

2. Remember this thread is asking for opinions. Opinions are not right or wrong. If you are telling someone their opinions are wrong, you are misunderstanding what an opinion is.

3. If you disagree with something someone posted, rephrase to say "Unlike 'namehere', I have found that my experiences have been..." You are offering your own viewpoint on the game this way, and not in a way where you belittle someone else.

4. Finally, remember that these threads are meant to enhance the experience of whoever is reading them. Giving your opinions on the game does this. Humor and analysis do this. People that have opposite opinions can benefit from hearing each other. Make sure your posts are ones that contribute to this community.

 

[Alistic]

Many people have posted much of what I wanted to say about this game already. Patch all you want to, in my opinion the "core" is broken.

Another game ruined by the lure of attracting this elusive "casual gamer" that needs everything simplified to the point there is no strategy at all and in turn no fun to keep said "casual gamer" coming back for one more turn.

Why hose the multiplayer community completely and take away the chat lobby and half the multiplayer settings?

I really hope they don't plan on releasing 2 expansions based on this model.

I was so excited about the hex map, the graphics look great (so much credit to the graphics designers). But this reeks of a team of devs/PMs/execs who are completly out of touch with actual gamers.

At some point didn't it send up any red flags during testing that this game is agonizing to play?

 

[Islet]

It's not just Civ IV that lacked such things, but the whole series. And not so much that they lacked them, really.

And I agree. I wouldn't want to suddenly deal with casus belli system a la EU3-style in a Civilization game. But the diplomacy approach in Civ 5 is really detracting and random. War is declared even when you are "Friendly" with the AI and he taunts you for trusting him in the first place.

Now this would be acceptable if it's Monty or Genghis Khan doing it occasionally. But when even Gandhi does it, it no longer matters who you're friends with, the AI leaders are just the same core with different faces plastered over them. Almost no lead-up to war. It's just "hey, let's be friends!" in one turn, the next "you'll no longer threaten the growth of my empire". Sounds like ALOT like multiplayer.

 

[bryanw1995]

"Your greed of Wonders is hurting our relationship!"

"You're going for a similar victory condition!"

"You posses lands that I want."

Lands that they want... sure. I can almost expect that to be a immersive, real life diplomatic thing. But on turn 20 with no new cities? Eh... And I think we all remember when Rome conquered Egypt for the Pyramids. Sarcasm aside, these all drag me out of the game. Especially the victory condition one. I wont go into other details.

In fact, why am I defending my opinion on these at all? I thought this thread was for expressing our opinions on the game post-patch, not setting up ourselves for attack by people who are aggressively pro-Civ5.

exactly. if you want to proclaim how great civ 5 is/was and/or attack people who in the past have had issues with the game then go do it somewhere else (or preferably not at all).

 

[SuperJay]

+1

It's so funny...

"I haven't played Civ V for a month..."
"I won't play Civ V again..."
"Civ V is a DLC cash cow and I won't play it..."

WHY THE HELL ARE YOU IN THE CIV V FORUMS THEN. Get lost!

It's interesting that you quoted my post and appeared to agree with me, and then went on to write a post that is exactly the kind of problem I'm referring to.

I haven't played Civ V in months, and I'm definitely not buying DLC til they fix the game, and I've been a pretty vocal (but reasonable, I hope) critic of the state of the game at release.

So why am I on this forum, partcipating in these threads, when folks like you keep telling me to GTFO because I don't share your opinion?

Because I'm a longtime Civilization devotee, and I want the latest iteration to be as great a game as it can be. Because I'm not a fair-weather fan. Because I bought this game and am interested in its development. And despite the weekly demands from folks like you who seem to want everyone else to leave CFC, I'm not going anywhere.

Back to the topic at hand - I'm glad that the patch seems to have introduced a lot of positive changes. I'm actually looking forward to playing the game again, and am becoming cautiously hopeful that it could become engaging and replayable and fun for a fan like me. Thanks to all who have provided constructive feedback so far, it's good to read others' opinions and experiences so far - both positive and negative.

 

[Zydor]

........ maybe the Paradox titles will give you what you're looking for. Maybe you can enjoy both, but for different reasons.

I am looking for "The Epic Journey". It was there - warts 'n all - in previous Civ Versions, and slowly over time as each Major revision came out, "The Epic Journey" was improving. The Civ 4 to Civ 5 itteration has changed all that, The Epic Journey - as it currently stands - has been dumped. They have clearly stated Civ 5 is a rebuild from ground up, so its still possible we are looking at "a work in progress". If so, I can understand the Franchise saying nothing on that angle - it would kill sales stone dead and dry up revenue needed to complete the rebuild. But we are where we are ....

Meanwhile, your point re Paradox is well made. I played Civ for 15 years, nothing else apart from GalCiv2. I never really had the incentive or need to look elsewhere - I used to have that much fun with the Civ Franchise. Since starting on Victoria2 (and just had a go at my first EU3) its given me a perspective I had not had before. My Thanks to those on the Board who recommended those to me despite my addiction as a "Civ Builder" - you were dead right and hit the nail on the head, my first experiences with Paradox have been very good, impressed, and I never thought I would say that about a non Civ Franchise game (apart from GalCiv2!).

Its a good call - I can see now, I will end up like both takes (Paradox & Fireaxis) on History and the approach they use, as long as Fireaxis put back "The Epic Journey".

Regards
Zy

 

[Martin Alvito]

OP: The patch still has severe balance issues. FoY is just plain broken, and the rebalance of Natural Wonders to confer free Happiness is bad in general.

On the plus side, there appear to be a lot more meaningful choices starting from turn 1. If it can be demonstrated that some form of National College first is strictly optimal, then we'll be right back where we were. For now, it looks like there is some additional strategic depth and the AI generally plays better as a builder. AI hostility was toned down a bit too much on Deity; the threat of war is necessary to keep the player honest.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Pleasantly surprised by plenty of "things" (exactly as advertised in the Notes); much more balanced gameplay, stronger defenses (both in cities & with Units deployment), revamping of the NW yields, Circus Maximus, National Treasure, less pleasewait drag effect, etc.
Superb effort by Firaxis devs team to address important issues.

 

[Sneaks]

I am looking for "The Epic Journey". It was there - warts 'n all - in previous Civ Versions, and slowly over time as each Major revision came out, "The Epic Journey" was improving. The Civ 4 to Civ 5 itteration has changed all that, The Epic Journey - as it currently stands - has been dumped. They have clearly stated Civ 5 is a rebuild from ground up, so its still possible we are looking at "a work in progress". If so, I can understand the Franchise saying nothing on that angle - it would kill sales stone dead and dry up revenue needed to complete the rebuild. But we are where we are ....

Meanwhile, your point re Paradox is well made. I played Civ for 15 years, nothing else apart from GalCiv2. I never really had the incentive or need to look elsewhere - I used to have that much fun with the Civ Franchise. Since starting on Victoria2 (and just had a go at my first EU3) its given me a perspective I had not had before. My Thanks to those on the Board who recommended those to me despite my addiction as a "Civ Builder" - you were dead right and hit the nail on the head, my first experiences with Paradox have been very good, impressed, and I never thought I would say that about a non Civ Franchise game (apart from GalCiv2!).

Its a good call - I can see now, I will end up like both takes (Paradox & Fireaxis) on History and the approach they use, as long as Fireaxis put back "The Epic Journey".

Regards
Zy

Paradox games are excellent for Civ fans. I have played the Europa Universalis series for years, and it offers a very interesting high "realism" alternative to Civ. I still much prefer Civ in terms of the sandbox possibilities, but each holds their own.

 

[Dralix]

War is declared even when you are "Friendly" with the AI and he taunts you for trusting him in the first place.

Now this would be acceptable if it's Monty or Genghis Khan doing it occasionally. But when even Gandhi does it, it no longer matters who you're friends with, the AI leaders are just the same core with different faces plastered over them.

I would agree with this too. 2KGreg stated somewhere (I think at the 2K boards) that the different leaders actually do have different personalities, and, iirc, that should be more apparent after the patch.

I can't say if this is true from my experience yet, I'm only on turn 186 of my first post patch game, and there hasn't been a single war on my continent. I've been trying to get Catherine to DoW me for the last several turns, with no luck. With different people reporting quite different experiences, I can't help but think that play style has a significant impact on how the AI responds to the player.

 

[Alistic]

I am looking for "The Epic Journey". It was there - warts 'n all - in previous Civ Versions, and slowly over time as each Major revision came out, "The Epic Journey" was improving. The Civ 4 to Civ 5 itteration has changed all that, The Epic Journey - as it currently stands - has been dumped.

Well said.

 

[Slowpoke]

"Your greed of Wonders is hurting our relationship!"

"You're going for a similar victory condition!"

"You posses lands that I want."

Lands that they want... sure. I can almost expect that to be a immersive, real life diplomatic thing. But on turn 20 with no new cities? Eh... And I think we all remember when Rome conquered Egypt for the Pyramids. Sarcasm aside, these all drag me out of the game. Especially the victory condition one. I wont go into other details.

In fact, why am I defending my opinion on these at all? I thought this thread was for expressing our opinions on the game post-patch, not setting up ourselves for attack by people who are aggressively pro-Civ5.

Sorry if I sounded harsh or something, I merely want to try and convince you to try it out anyways. It sounded like you were not playing it only based on rumors that are, quite frankly, not true.

 

[generalwar]

I have tried 1 game so far, but I'm going to try team game for the first time, maybe allies are improved too, althought I haven't read it in patch notes. But, I'm very pleased with the new patch. For the first time, I saw simultanious attack from 2 civs. Gandhi attacked me with war elephant, spearmen and 2 archers and 2 turns later his buddy Alex came in with 2-3 archers, 2-3 warriors and hoplite. And they attacked the sam city, I still can't believe that really happened and I'm glad. I think that ciV is really improving now and tradition is awesome. It's so cool to actually use your city and feel like you're breathing life in them. AWESOME!!!

 

[Zydor]

.... I can't help but think that play style has a significant impact on how the AI responds to the player.

Definitely. I have tried a few warmongering, as well as my normal "Builder" style. It seems to me that if you maintain a strong Military, the AI will leave you alone, as it always did on other versions. The latter is of course entirely reasonable - to say the least.

Where I came to a juddering halt in the "maybe they have got this back to Civ roots" feeling, was as the non warmongering games developed - which is my preffered style, I am a "Builder" - it seemed to grind to a halt and had only nominal non warmongering aspects. It was still a "hit the enter button" routine. In fairness the Patch was not flagged up to adress that kind of aspect, so I'm still in wait and see mode for an expansion pack - fingers & toes crossed

Regards
Zy