People are here posting because they care about their beloved Civ, not because they enjoy complaining. Quite frankly I was impressed with the passion as I had not been on civfanatics for some years. Reading post after post of people hitting the nail on the head with things I was going to point out.
To those who have, up until now, not been happy with Civ V...
- Thread starter charon2112
- Start date
People are here posting because they care about their beloved Civ, not because they enjoy complaining. Quite frankly I was impressed with the passion as I had not been on civfanatics for some years. Reading post after post of people hitting the nail on the head with things I was going to point out.
charon2112
King
I don't mind this so much, I know a few games that are like this. In GalCiv2, if you don't have a strong military the AI's will walk all over you.
Zydor
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,120
Moderator Action: My previous post in this thread apparently was to subtle for some, so I'll reiterate: if you want to discuss the game, you are welcome to do so, if you want to discuss your views of other users you are absolutely not welcome to do so.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
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 know. It was bad judgement on my part and I was frustrated.
I'll keep it on-topic this time.
Pre-Patch:
- Confused about Pacts of Secrecy/Pacts of Cooperation and what they got me/didn't get me
- Cities too easy to capture
- Horsemen too overpowered
- Buildings like watermill/theater/circus unbalanced
Post-Patch:
I'm still on my first game with the patch but am loving it thus far!
- More simple and engaging levels of AI mood - Afraid/Guarded/Neutral/Hostile "attitudes"
- More frequent AI interaction which feels realistic in nature
- AI allied against and easily angered by warmongering tactics and the player creeping up the scoreboard - good!
- Better AI decisions as to who to attack
- Buildings/units I've built this far have fixed balanced issues
- Capturing cities is MUCH harder, especially with walls - sadly, maybe now walls are overpowered?
Get out there and try a full game of the newly-patched Civ V - it's well worth it in my opinion.
Ouch, really? What happened, if you don't mind sharing?
Mahatmajon
Prince
1st game post-patch findings
My first try with England, random/quick/emperor type settings
Ended up on a pangea map in the middle
Interesting/new things that wouldn't have happened pre-patch:
- I started near a river and put my 2nd city near a river. Both had gems and capital also had gold. Instead of 3rd settler early when I normally would I think it made sense to build watermills (now +2 food / +1 hammer) for both cities
- Both cities built early markets so I could build the _____ (new national wonder +8 gold, need all markets, cost goes up as empire size increases)
With this early rush I was making tons of gold very early via normal/actual game play methods...as opposed to selling open borders / selling single luxuries / etc.
With the +gold in hand and extra happinesses hooked up I planted a 3rd/4th city and did some citystate quests / established my first ally. This was much later than I ever would have pre-patch
Napolean declared ~turn 120 or so and had around 6-7 cities in a total ICS grid. All of his cities were 3 tiles apart from eachother. His attack was hopeless with 2-3 spearmen, 1-2 warriors, 1-2 archers, & 1 horseman. There was no way he could get my city defenses down. Eventually I counterattacked with longbowman (had basically rushed to that technology) & 2 catapults that I was gifted (I didn't research iron working until ~turn 150 or so) along with a couple warriors and spearmen. I was able to take out all of Nappy's cities, but it certainly took a while and a lot of ranged attacks.
Iroquois/Egypt/myself formed a pact and made multiple statements of friendship. They didn't intervene or automatically turn on me once Nappy attacked me and as I pushed through to kill/take his territory.
I joined with Genghis against Washington (otherwise Genghis would likely have gone for me).
Now post-war Iroquois/Egypt are still my buds (Friendly) but won't make statements of friendship because I beat up on Nappy -- I'm okay with that. Genghis denounced me - likely for beating up on a weakling but is still friendly. Washington is guarded, but I want to kill him because he beat me to 2 wonders by a turn.
My capital is very +science/+gold/+building and has a watermill, windmill, & +building one. My 2nd city is very +production/military and has a watermill, windmill, barracks, armory, and +troops one. I still have tons of cash and have 4 cities + ~6 puppets.
It's a builder game with some diplomacy, a relatively easy war (but still took some maneuvering), and generally has been fun. About the only thing that doesn't feel exactly right and that I'm sure many are complaining about is the early game feels even slower than before because you're much less likely to be attacking anyone early (AI or citystate). The middle-age techs are going by extremely quickly now that I have a bunch of +sci up, a large empire, and tons of gold to sign research agreements.
It's better. Good patch. Cities are probably okay, but catapults & such should be slightly stronger. I don't think I got 5 damage on a city until I had a promoted trebuchet against a smallish city. Against a large city or capital it's 3 or maybe 4 and other units were all doing ~3.
My first try with England, random/quick/emperor type settings
Ended up on a pangea map in the middle
Interesting/new things that wouldn't have happened pre-patch:
- I started near a river and put my 2nd city near a river. Both had gems and capital also had gold. Instead of 3rd settler early when I normally would I think it made sense to build watermills (now +2 food / +1 hammer) for both cities
- Both cities built early markets so I could build the _____ (new national wonder +8 gold, need all markets, cost goes up as empire size increases)
With this early rush I was making tons of gold very early via normal/actual game play methods...as opposed to selling open borders / selling single luxuries / etc.
With the +gold in hand and extra happinesses hooked up I planted a 3rd/4th city and did some citystate quests / established my first ally. This was much later than I ever would have pre-patch
Napolean declared ~turn 120 or so and had around 6-7 cities in a total ICS grid. All of his cities were 3 tiles apart from eachother. His attack was hopeless with 2-3 spearmen, 1-2 warriors, 1-2 archers, & 1 horseman. There was no way he could get my city defenses down. Eventually I counterattacked with longbowman (had basically rushed to that technology) & 2 catapults that I was gifted (I didn't research iron working until ~turn 150 or so) along with a couple warriors and spearmen. I was able to take out all of Nappy's cities, but it certainly took a while and a lot of ranged attacks.
Iroquois/Egypt/myself formed a pact and made multiple statements of friendship. They didn't intervene or automatically turn on me once Nappy attacked me and as I pushed through to kill/take his territory.
I joined with Genghis against Washington (otherwise Genghis would likely have gone for me).
Now post-war Iroquois/Egypt are still my buds (Friendly) but won't make statements of friendship because I beat up on Nappy -- I'm okay with that. Genghis denounced me - likely for beating up on a weakling but is still friendly. Washington is guarded, but I want to kill him because he beat me to 2 wonders by a turn.
My capital is very +science/+gold/+building and has a watermill, windmill, & +building one. My 2nd city is very +production/military and has a watermill, windmill, barracks, armory, and +troops one. I still have tons of cash and have 4 cities + ~6 puppets.
It's a builder game with some diplomacy, a relatively easy war (but still took some maneuvering), and generally has been fun. About the only thing that doesn't feel exactly right and that I'm sure many are complaining about is the early game feels even slower than before because you're much less likely to be attacking anyone early (AI or citystate). The middle-age techs are going by extremely quickly now that I have a bunch of +sci up, a large empire, and tons of gold to sign research agreements.
It's better. Good patch. Cities are probably okay, but catapults & such should be slightly stronger. I don't think I got 5 damage on a city until I had a promoted trebuchet against a smallish city. Against a large city or capital it's 3 or maybe 4 and other units were all doing ~3.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
I haven't played in a while until the patch came out. Booted it up and started a WW1 scenario
1.) Techs still go by too fast for me on marathon but build times are manageable somewhat. Building an improvement, though, shouldn't take longer than researching a tech. All I want is the option to disable Research Agreements. I don't care about decreasing the time to build improvements. I like they take a while to build.
2.) Diplomacy is a lot more sane. On the other hand, it's....too friendly now but maybe it's just me. I don't think declaring war on someone's friend really hurts relations much. It also may have to due with me being relatively average on the scoreboards since Russia and France, much higher on the scoreboards, are drying the ire of the international community.
3.) Wars are harder. Seriously, don't try to take a seasoned, well-populated city with just an artillery piece and a few infantry and expect to succeed. That, combined with the fact I actually saw the AI (gasp!) using terrain defenses and fortifying, I never did take Mexico City.
Part of me wonders whether the AI can handle this. Russia and Japan went to war and neither side has managed to take a city from the other. Of course, this is a 1900 map so maybe it makes sense.
1.) Techs still go by too fast for me on marathon but build times are manageable somewhat. Building an improvement, though, shouldn't take longer than researching a tech. All I want is the option to disable Research Agreements. I don't care about decreasing the time to build improvements. I like they take a while to build.
2.) Diplomacy is a lot more sane. On the other hand, it's....too friendly now but maybe it's just me. I don't think declaring war on someone's friend really hurts relations much. It also may have to due with me being relatively average on the scoreboards since Russia and France, much higher on the scoreboards, are drying the ire of the international community.
3.) Wars are harder. Seriously, don't try to take a seasoned, well-populated city with just an artillery piece and a few infantry and expect to succeed. That, combined with the fact I actually saw the AI (gasp!) using terrain defenses and fortifying, I never did take Mexico City.
Part of me wonders whether the AI can handle this. Russia and Japan went to war and neither side has managed to take a city from the other. Of course, this is a 1900 map so maybe it makes sense.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Civ5 doesn't feel all the different to me after the patch. Sure, there are plenty of tweaks here and there, and the elite players will have to go back and reoptimize their opening strategies to account for the changes. Overall though, it's pretty similar to the way it was before. If you liked Civ5 before the patch, you'll still like it; if you found the game boring or not interesting, you probably won't. Once the excitement of getting new things (small wonders, natural wonders, etc.) and building them for the first time wears off, I expect the community will be back to where it was prior to this latest release.
Honestly, I don't think that much actually changed. Civ5 is a little bit better. It's not going to make people who disliked the game before fall in love with it now.
Honestly, I don't think that much actually changed. Civ5 is a little bit better. It's not going to make people who disliked the game before fall in love with it now.
WimpyTheWarrior
Warlord
Thank you sir, (or madam)
Excellent post! You described the different experiences you had post-patch. After reading your post I will now save my current Civ-4 and load the patch and try Civ-5 again.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
I haven't played the patch yet, but from the notes...
This patch feels like they painted Racing stripes, on a Ford Pinto.
I will actually play it out a bit before I come to a final conclusion, but I do know that very few of the things I wanted to see exist there. And yes, the addition of Disney-style Natural Wonders is putting me off further.
They focused on strategic balance, instead of the more root problems of the game. Is the game pacing still poor? Do I have deeper non-war based strategies to try? I don't see any 'yes' answers to that in the notes.
This patch feels like they painted Racing stripes, on a Ford Pinto.
I will actually play it out a bit before I come to a final conclusion, but I do know that very few of the things I wanted to see exist there. And yes, the addition of Disney-style Natural Wonders is putting me off further.
They focused on strategic balance, instead of the more root problems of the game. Is the game pacing still poor? Do I have deeper non-war based strategies to try? I don't see any 'yes' answers to that in the notes.
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
Civ went 5 steps back, and this patch just took it 2 steps forward. But please Fraxis! All I want for Civ5 is immersion!
Atwork
Immortal
Hadn't played in at least a month. Downloaded the patch, made sure the mods would still work, found a good starting spot, and dove in. Note: I'm playing with CCMAT, Airbase, City State Leaders, and Kinda Realistic Unit Pre-reqs mods.
I'm about 150 turns into an Epic speed/ Huge/Continents/Immortal difficulty game. So far, I've been really impressed with how different this game feels from the 3 or 4 I attempted to play before (only got into Industrial age once before the game was decided or I was too bored to continue).
The biggest difference I've noticed is the AI's aggressiveness in expansion and its impressive strategic placements. That alone puts the feeling of urgency/time crunch back into the game. And it's been that way all game so far. I've also been beat to the punch on tile purchases a few times (that never happened before). An AI plopped a city down a few turns before I could -- right in a key mountain pass -- and within 2 turns purchased two tiles that I'd hoped to grab with my previously placed city.....I didn't have the money, the AI did, and to its credit, the AI spent the money wisely.
I've been forced to play frantic catch-up in terms of number of cities, population, military size, and technology. I've had to play hard this go around, which was certainly not the case before. And I'm still well outside the top 5 in most categories besides: number of cities (3rd), size of army (4th), and productivity (2nd).
There's still a long ways to go with diplomacy, but I like the changes to the AI so far. All in all, it seems a bit more stable even if I've had a few things happen that left me saying, wha?! I generally like being able to see who my friends are and I like the way that diplomacy has been triangulated (a friend of my friend is also my friend). I wish I still had the option of telling the AI not to settle near me, because I used to use the option with success. I also wish there there were alternative ways to help the AI when it asks to go to war with someone (no to war, but how about some units or some cash?).
I could say more, but I've already some posting here and there in other places. All in all, I'm having fun in this game -- and that's the first time I can say that with any conviction.
I'm about 150 turns into an Epic speed/ Huge/Continents/Immortal difficulty game. So far, I've been really impressed with how different this game feels from the 3 or 4 I attempted to play before (only got into Industrial age once before the game was decided or I was too bored to continue).
The biggest difference I've noticed is the AI's aggressiveness in expansion and its impressive strategic placements. That alone puts the feeling of urgency/time crunch back into the game. And it's been that way all game so far. I've also been beat to the punch on tile purchases a few times (that never happened before). An AI plopped a city down a few turns before I could -- right in a key mountain pass -- and within 2 turns purchased two tiles that I'd hoped to grab with my previously placed city.....I didn't have the money, the AI did, and to its credit, the AI spent the money wisely.
I've been forced to play frantic catch-up in terms of number of cities, population, military size, and technology. I've had to play hard this go around, which was certainly not the case before. And I'm still well outside the top 5 in most categories besides: number of cities (3rd), size of army (4th), and productivity (2nd).
There's still a long ways to go with diplomacy, but I like the changes to the AI so far. All in all, it seems a bit more stable even if I've had a few things happen that left me saying, wha?! I generally like being able to see who my friends are and I like the way that diplomacy has been triangulated (a friend of my friend is also my friend). I wish I still had the option of telling the AI not to settle near me, because I used to use the option with success. I also wish there there were alternative ways to help the AI when it asks to go to war with someone (no to war, but how about some units or some cash?).
I could say more, but I've already some posting here and there in other places. All in all, I'm having fun in this game -- and that's the first time I can say that with any conviction.
joyous_gard
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2010
- Messages
- 476
The patch just put a different ruleset on the same game. I don't like the game for the lack of detail (tiles are way too simple) and coolness ("oh wow, wheat and a granary gives one smile," "cool, stone builds stone buildings faster" "neat windmill tile enhancements"). I also find intense battles to be really tedious, with controls and navigation that leave a lot to be desired.
The patch added some coolness with Natural Wonder bonus variabilty, but they are few and far between, not really meat and potatoes of the game. Diplo changes don't mean a great deal to me and it is still buggy (Friendly AI: "Ahh the Warmonger rears his ugly head again." Well, nice to see you too. "You're going for my victory condition on move 75."). The rest of the patch just changes the rules. That to me reads like they don't know what the hell they are doing. The new buildings feel like patches (they need more smiles, give them clown college). The game is way too building heavy and there's not a real opportunity to take advantage of most of them given the still excessive build times and the buildings lack of necessity in a finite game.
The AI isn't really better, but it spams cities to get the benefits of city bombard, essentially covering a flank of the target city. It understands the new rules better than the players right now, but eventually it will be back to the same AI that can't play the game. It makes for a tedious grind through the game. Oh great, it's not just the runaway civ that has 20 cities to overcome, it's all of them. Then the game trades you the cities, because it doesn't want you to lose. It's all shoddy.
The patch is fine but it's sideways for me. Not a step forward or back. Just a different set of rules in the same game that I don't like as much as the predecessor.
The patch added some coolness with Natural Wonder bonus variabilty, but they are few and far between, not really meat and potatoes of the game. Diplo changes don't mean a great deal to me and it is still buggy (Friendly AI: "Ahh the Warmonger rears his ugly head again." Well, nice to see you too. "You're going for my victory condition on move 75."). The rest of the patch just changes the rules. That to me reads like they don't know what the hell they are doing. The new buildings feel like patches (they need more smiles, give them clown college). The game is way too building heavy and there's not a real opportunity to take advantage of most of them given the still excessive build times and the buildings lack of necessity in a finite game.
The AI isn't really better, but it spams cities to get the benefits of city bombard, essentially covering a flank of the target city. It understands the new rules better than the players right now, but eventually it will be back to the same AI that can't play the game. It makes for a tedious grind through the game. Oh great, it's not just the runaway civ that has 20 cities to overcome, it's all of them. Then the game trades you the cities, because it doesn't want you to lose. It's all shoddy.
The patch is fine but it's sideways for me. Not a step forward or back. Just a different set of rules in the same game that I don't like as much as the predecessor.
Illuminated
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 11, 2002
- Messages
- 21
I stopped playing a month ago and decided to wait for this patch because I just wasn't having fun playing.
I played with this patch for the first time tonight and lots of things have been fixed/changed but I find it's still not fun. I want it to be fun. I want to get the "one more turn" feeling. I did with every other Civ < 5... but it's just not there.
I don't know if it is the slowness (can't skip intro easily, load saved game takes forever, AI takes forever), the bugs they didn't fix (resource icons still off-by-one tile randomly, units get "stuck" and don't reactivate when they are blocked from moving) or the new bugs that got introduced (resource allocation balls disappear in city screen after 30 seconds or so), or a combination of all of them, but I just want it to be fun and it's not and that makes me sad.
I played with this patch for the first time tonight and lots of things have been fixed/changed but I find it's still not fun. I want it to be fun. I want to get the "one more turn" feeling. I did with every other Civ < 5... but it's just not there.
I don't know if it is the slowness (can't skip intro easily, load saved game takes forever, AI takes forever), the bugs they didn't fix (resource icons still off-by-one tile randomly, units get "stuck" and don't reactivate when they are blocked from moving) or the new bugs that got introduced (resource allocation balls disappear in city screen after 30 seconds or so), or a combination of all of them, but I just want it to be fun and it's not and that makes me sad.
MooFreaky
Meatbag Destroyer
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 335
The intro cannot be skipped easily because it is a load screen. It is basically the same as staring at a screen that says "loading".
As to the AI wanting to win the game, I actually like that. The fact that you simply cannot crush 1 enemy at a time while the other civs sit around watching and doing nothing is much better. It was incredibly boring to win so easily because the AI really wouldn't try to compete.
That said, there are much better ways of addressing this issue and maintaining the immersion.
Just using the player using war as their victory condition as an example:
Nations pick up their way of winning, but don't simply say "i want to win". Aggressive nations start conquering their neighbours and act in the manner "we must grow our borders and strength to compete with you". So they pick on the weak and the disliked, form alliances and generally make themselves more powerful. Rather than just attack anyone, prioritise the more 'realistic' targets, but keep in the random factor that a crazy/desperate leader may just attack their friends or neutrals (it happened alot during history).
Weaker nations seek alliances with more friendly powerful nations while upping their win method (though they do not say this is what they are doing). Thus they are seeking protection to keep themselves alive while doing their own thing.
Alternatively they may seek to offer you incentives to not pick them next. Offering a bit of money, or offering to attack another rival with you, or handing over a Great Person, or whatever so that you attack a rival instead of them. All the while they are trying to achieve their victory before you do (but don't say blatantly that they are trying to win by doing so).
Or introduce stricter alliances (or multiple alliance options) where the allies can win as though they were one nation (but operate as seperate civs though). This means you can foorm very strong alliance with other nations and not simply turn and stomp them later (which, to me is an immersion breaker as it is playing the metagame rather than the more 'realistic' path). Breaking such an alliance has big negative impacts on you (reduced happiness, and whatever other penalties can be thought of) so you don't want to do it. Declaring war on them within a certain timeframe (say 100 turns of being allies, for example) creates even worse negative effects. So it can be done if the situation arises, but its not encouraged.
This gives big benefits. Computers won't just declare war on their friends for no reason. Former allies won't just declare war on you for no reason. You can't play the metagame either and get a big advantage over everyone.
Make it so refusing to enter bigger alliances with friends has a smaller negative effect on relations. After all, if you really are close friends (and have been for a long time) why would you not want to
show it? Again this is realistic and will help everyone, including the player, be able to play to win but not be "too gamey" about it.
Finally,Simple things like changing the messages from "You are pursuing the same victory condition as me" to "your power threatens our power" or "we dislike that you have culture to rival our own" or "we want to possess unparalleled technology" etc. These are all realistic reasons to dislike eachother and do not break immersion like saying "I want to win the game"
As to the AI wanting to win the game, I actually like that. The fact that you simply cannot crush 1 enemy at a time while the other civs sit around watching and doing nothing is much better. It was incredibly boring to win so easily because the AI really wouldn't try to compete.
That said, there are much better ways of addressing this issue and maintaining the immersion.
Just using the player using war as their victory condition as an example:
Nations pick up their way of winning, but don't simply say "i want to win". Aggressive nations start conquering their neighbours and act in the manner "we must grow our borders and strength to compete with you". So they pick on the weak and the disliked, form alliances and generally make themselves more powerful. Rather than just attack anyone, prioritise the more 'realistic' targets, but keep in the random factor that a crazy/desperate leader may just attack their friends or neutrals (it happened alot during history).
Weaker nations seek alliances with more friendly powerful nations while upping their win method (though they do not say this is what they are doing). Thus they are seeking protection to keep themselves alive while doing their own thing.
Alternatively they may seek to offer you incentives to not pick them next. Offering a bit of money, or offering to attack another rival with you, or handing over a Great Person, or whatever so that you attack a rival instead of them. All the while they are trying to achieve their victory before you do (but don't say blatantly that they are trying to win by doing so).
Or introduce stricter alliances (or multiple alliance options) where the allies can win as though they were one nation (but operate as seperate civs though). This means you can foorm very strong alliance with other nations and not simply turn and stomp them later (which, to me is an immersion breaker as it is playing the metagame rather than the more 'realistic' path). Breaking such an alliance has big negative impacts on you (reduced happiness, and whatever other penalties can be thought of) so you don't want to do it. Declaring war on them within a certain timeframe (say 100 turns of being allies, for example) creates even worse negative effects. So it can be done if the situation arises, but its not encouraged.
This gives big benefits. Computers won't just declare war on their friends for no reason. Former allies won't just declare war on you for no reason. You can't play the metagame either and get a big advantage over everyone.
Make it so refusing to enter bigger alliances with friends has a smaller negative effect on relations. After all, if you really are close friends (and have been for a long time) why would you not want to
show it? Again this is realistic and will help everyone, including the player, be able to play to win but not be "too gamey" about it.
Finally,Simple things like changing the messages from "You are pursuing the same victory condition as me" to "your power threatens our power" or "we dislike that you have culture to rival our own" or "we want to possess unparalleled technology" etc. These are all realistic reasons to dislike eachother and do not break immersion like saying "I want to win the game"
There's only one reason for EVERY single war in history: to take what's others by force.
border, religion etc, these are just reasons made up to justify them.
Moofreaky there is an option to disable the intro which quickens the loadtime for many people.
glance at the bugreports forum to see it. Trading is a big part of the game for me and that bug sucks.
I disagree gmbodhi. Theres no reason for any war in history, it's all stupidity. However if one party demands a fight sometimes theres no option but to oblige.
glance at the bugreports forum to see it. Trading is a big part of the game for me and that bug sucks.
I disagree gmbodhi. Theres no reason for any war in history, it's all stupidity. However if one party demands a fight sometimes theres no option but to oblige.
Right....
I suppose the American War of Independence is to "take what's [British] by force", I suppose America is an illegitimate country then?
. Heck. To give you a more recent example. Persian Gulf War, liberation of Kuwait. No land is taken by the UN to plonk down a new country. True, in a war, something, land, money, resources are usually taken by the victors. At least they provided some plausible reason rather than "you are going for the same victory condition as me!!"
EDIT: In fact, war is using force to take what is others. That's the method not the reason.
Similar threads
