What Civilization 5 did right

[Truellama]

I'm pleasently suprised how intriquing this game. In previous Civ titles diplomacy was a moot points because you can field such huge armies and just conquer your neighbors, so why bother dealing with them in any other way then with the sword. Civ 5 is different in this regard your neighbors are important and significant and so are your city states.

In one game I was Greece and Aztec just conquered my neighbor USA. Aztec was the most powerful force in our continent. Germany was south of both Greece and Aztec but was a minimal power. There was no way I could match the size of Aztec so what I did was ally myself with 3 city states that bordered between me and Aztec and 2 of them where military states! I just created a buffer zone against invasion from Aztec and bolstered my strength as well. I strived for friendly relations with Germany, they where relatively weak but I needed all the help I could get to keep the Aztecs in check. I went out of my way to give money to Germany eventually they came to me to open up borders, research pacts and cooperate against Aztec. I also made up my mind that if Aztec tried to invade Germany I would declare war on them even though I wasn't ready for them. This reminded me of Brittain in the early years of WW2 against Germany. It all felt very genuine, suspenseful and fun. In previous Civ games I would have rolled over Aztec or they roll over me those where the only 2 options.

Aztec finally did declare war on me. I gifted most of my military units to the central military city state that was the obvious battlefront. I did this so I can free up my economy (I had a lot less military expenses after giftng most of my army) and start cranking out units. Also I needed to bolster my border states I couldn't afford to let Aztec knock out my allies one at a time. The Aztec army was huge and they kept assaulting the central military state but with the combined forces Aztec was fended off and weakened to the point where I went on the offense with my newly built forces mostly Companion Calvary. I managed to conquer two of their outer cities and decided to raze them. My happiness was hovering near zero and I couldn't afford to babysit 2 cities till they calmed down.

Aztec came to me and sued for peace and I happily accepted. I could have continued the war because the momentum was on my side now but I decided against it. The war would have lasted a long time and my cities instead of growing would have stagnated building military units and I couldn't keep what I conquered I would have had to raze every thing. It would have been a good way to finally get rid of the thorn on my backside but I think the price would have been to high. I would have spent many turns on war instead of progressing my civilization. I was worried the other civilizations across the ocean would have developed far ahead of me if I squanded my resources on war instead of growth.

I figured I hurt Aztec bad enough it would take him a long time to recover and my plan to create a buffer zone worked so I had little to fear from Aztec, so I agreed to peace. Germany did nothing, lol. I asked them to join me and ofcourse they refused. Still having Germany as a potential friend was better then them joining the Aztecs. All of this was impossible in past Civ games because it was all a moot point and diplomacy was like jello nothing sticked. City states are dependable allies the other civs arent as much till you can create defensive pacts with them.

The fact that you can't weild an infinite army and cant grow your empire like bacteria in a petry dish is what makes diplomacy so important and it actually matters what you do to your neighbors. This is the greatest breakthrough to Civilization and it makes the game so dynamic and interesting you never know in each new game in what political situation you will find yourself in.

 

[Jediron]

In previous Civ titles diplomacy was a moot points because you can field such huge armies and just conquer your neighbors, so why bother dealing with them in any other way then with the sword. Civ 5 is different in this regard your neighbors are important and significant and so are your city states.

Really ?

Can you answer this then ?
How come, that when you put FOUR horseman units; you can RAZE the MAP, if you like ?
That's CIV 5

How come, that i can take my whole contenint, crsuhing 4 civ's doing so, easily, on a "hard" difficulty; Before 0BC, with NO horses at all, but 7 units of spear and archers ?

And yes, i still can grow like "bacteria" as you put it, infact i have 21 cities already.

Moderator Action: You could have made your points perfectly without adding in that last line, please stay civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

ps: removed the last line. You're right MOD. Excuse me.

 

[Niedermayer]

With all the critiques and moanings going on in this website, Civ 6 is gonna be awesome now that they generally know what the gamers want and want less of..

 

[KCMcG]

Yeah, I'm not sure CiV made diplomacy matter any more than it did in Civ IV. What CiV did right is that with 1UPT, it's actually fun and strategic to go to war. I'm more of a builder, but in CiV I actually enjoy going to war because it's not just fielding a missive SOD and watching it smash against another SOD. I actually have to position my units so that the ranged units can't be attacked and so that my great generals are safe.

 

[schmere]

Jediron, sure hope you feel better.

The OP makes some good points about it's own gaming experience. Actually managed to say how they enjoyed it, rather than just the same old flaming.

I agree - the addition of city states, who aren't trying to win the game, makes diplomacy much more interesting. I like the idea of gifting troops into a city state to give my opponent something else to think about while I build up. That's a neat idea.

 

[Conspirator]

What are you on about? City States are rubbish. They're boring with no character. All you do is buy them, there's no diplomacy involved at all. How can city states make diplomacy interesting when 1) they have no character at all 2) all you do is send them money. And trying to say that it's cool that you can now gift units to city states, well you could always gift units to other Civs. Nothing new there. It was always possible to start proxy wars, especially in Civ 4. Heck you could get the whole world against someone if you wanted, or even make a real world war.

 

[Bandit17]

I agree with the OP in part that CS's and the high price of fielding a military have added greatly to the civ series. Their is hope and promise to civ5 but there is sooo much negligance in balance and diplomacy that it really drowns out the good. The fact that the tiny German empire was soon to be a road bump to Aztec aggression and yet you could'nt get them to commit to anything of real substance is something I see over and over in my games. When the devs improve diplomacy to the point where you can really interact with the ai than I will come over to your side and agree that this new diplomatic model is superior to past models.

 

[Truellama]

I agree this game needs more balancing and isn't finished but I'm surpised some people don't see what Civ 5 achieved. Yes you can cheese this game and bum rush early game and raze every thing the ground with OP units like the Companion Calvary, basically wipe out every civ in your continent and be free to expand at your leisure... but why would you want to do that??? Instead why not just play the game and ignore the cheap mechanics available to you, if the AI doesn't use it against you then I don't see a problem.

At first I thought city states was a gimmick best ignored but now I realize what they bring to the game. When Aztec was breathing down my throat I couldn't do any thing about it, not on my own atleast. I didn't have the income to match his army and my happiness was near zero so I couldn't expand my empire. There was empty lands to the west of me where I could have filled with 3 or more cities but with my happiness so low I couldn't afford it. There was also no new luxuries to the west of me so expansion would have hurt not helped me. I was in a bad situation.

I tried to help USA fend off the Aztecs because I knew if I ignored the war the Aztecs would conquer USA and not stop there. Again it was like WW2 do I cower and appease to the Aztecs or take a stand here and now and stop the monster from growing in power? I decided to do something even though it would cost me. I wanted to send military aid to the USA (yes I was afraid to declare official war on the Aztecs). I couldn't gift them any units and in fact USA disliked me because earlier in the game I encroached in their territory a bit. There was no way for me to help them and I'm sure they would have accepted my military aid if given a chance but that mechanic was missing from the game. I didn't have open borders with USA because they hated me so I couldn't send units and gift them away. I watched helpessly as Aztec conquered USA. Now they where 4 cities bigger.

Then I saw that the three city states bordering me and the former USA it was the perfect "Wall" against the Aztecs. I couldn't expand my power so I did the next best thing and I allied with all three city states and look what it did. It boosted my defenses and I figured even if it was enough to stop the Aztecs at the gate it would slow them down and hurt them maybe hurt them enough to give me a chance to form a counter attack and make them sue for peace. Hey if they conquered my border states they where expendable in the very end. That was the political game I played on the map a game that didn't exist in former Civ titles.

My other games turned out to be similar and some completely different. In one game my rival neighbor was so far away I had nothing to fear and instead I conquered city states that had resources and luxuries I needed. If they where closer I would have allied with border stats to form a barrier but no need for that in this game setup. This is awesome stuff and lacking in so many empire builder games. What Civ 5 needs to do is losen up on diplomacy with civilizations and make them more dependable and useful.

I just like the potical scene each game creates for you. Keeping rivals in check by alliances or covert actions. Also planning your next war campaign thoughtfully with the limited income and happiness available to you, you have to pick and chose your wars carefully you can't blindly roll over your neighbors any more and not have it mater instead it may have been wiser to conquer that civilization across the ocean because they have abundances of oil, coal or aluminum or luxuries and etc. In Civ 4 and Civ 3 just send my blob armies to do every thing, who cares it didn't matter I could do every thing at once no planning needed.

 

[Conspirator]

:What I don't understand is why you weren't already friends with those city states. By that I mean it sounds as if you 'discovered' the benefits of city states in the game you are describing for the first time. You realised that spending cash on city states to 'ally' them with you made sense. So you bought them up. Let's see how great you think city states are in future games, when every city state you know is allied with you because why not??. And buying out city states close to your enemies when you need to harass them a gamey gimick that you end up doing every single game.

In Civ 4 as a comparison if you wanted to buffer against an enemy or get someone to help you you would have to befriend other civilizations by accepting their demands, joining their religion or converting them by producing missionaries, gifting, and going to war for them as well as giving them technologies or money to do it for you. Or you would find a civ that already disliked your enemy and it would be cheap to get him to hop along in a war. Or you could create powerful vassals by gifting the necessary buffer cities to your conquered vassals. Vassals were a lot cooler than city states, and yes you could gift units to them, as well as technologies and everything else. Vassals were real babies you would create and care for.

Rather than doing anything in relation to diplomacy city states help you less than real allies did in Civ 4 and instead of spending time building and developing a relationship over time to gain real influence you simply spend a lump sum. YAWN. Am I the only one that sees city states as a really gamey gimick??

 

[lschnarch]

Yes you can cheese this game and bum rush early game and raze every thing the ground with OP units like the Companion Calvary, basically wipe out every civ in your continent and be free to expand at your leisure... but why would you want to do that??? Instead why not just play the game and ignore the cheap mechanics available to you, if the AI doesn't use it against you then I don't see a problem.

Pardon me.

The fact that Aztecs were to stupid to buy the CS by themselves, but you did does not constitute "cheesing the game"?
Why didn't you "ignore the cheap mechanics of the game"?

Or are your cheap mechanics masterful playing, if done by yourself?

Not to be rude, but something in your description confuses me.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I am playing a game as India, and I have two cities. My second city is clear across a huge continent, and also next to the superpower in this game, the ottomans. So i have two war units, an elephant archer and a warrior at my capital, and nothing in my second city. Ottomans eventually Dow me, they have janisarys cannons, trebuchets etc. I am able to build catapults, and not use my capital because it's too far and would take 35+turns for units to reach my second city. Anyways, I build up/buy 2 cats, 2horses that I upgraded to knights, 2 crossbows, a musket, and two swords that I upgraded to longswords. Needless to say my one city was able to fend off a 15+ city superpower, then take some of his cities before peace. I then sold him back the one city I didn't raze for all his gold and 100gpt. My point is....diplo would be fun, if it actually mattered.

 

[charon2112]

...Actually managed to say how they enjoyed it, rather than just the same old flaming.

I agree. It's refreshing to see someone actually have a point, like the OP, and describe his experience in detail. There's been so much empty complaining (and really by the same 5 or 6 individuals, re-posting over and over about how bad Civ V is).

 

[charon2112]

You can use these exact 'rushing' tactics in Civ IV...

Really ?

Can you answer this then ?
How come, that when you put FOUR horseman units; you can RAZE the MAP, if you like ?
That's CIV 5

How come, that i can take my whole contenint, crsuhing 4 civ's doing so, easily, on a "hard" difficulty; Before 0BC, with NO horses at all, but 7 units of spear and archers ?

And yes, i still can grow like "bacteria" as you put it, infact i have 21 cities already.
Please come back, when you really have somthing to tell usefull. Cause frankly, excuse my words; this is crap.

 

[Jediron]

You can use these exact 'rushing' tactics in Civ IV...

I wonder if you ever played IV. Cause i am sure it is impossible to take a continent, kill 4 Civ's with JUST FOUR HORSEMEN, (or any kind of unit).
Anyway, you bypass, and this is not the first time, my point. The OP started to praise some stuff that can be done with V, while all those things can done with IV too. IOW: he is making a invalid arrgument.

[

I agree. It's refreshing to see someone actually have a point, like the OP, and describe his experience in detail. There's been so much empty complaining (and really by the same 5 or 6 individuals, re-posting over and over about how bad Civ V is).

If you consider invalid point "refreshing", that's refreshing on its own

People don't have to tell me what could be done in previous versions, i am well aware off. But excuse me, if i correct someone who makes a "false" postive in favor of V.
And yes, i see some improvements in V. It could have been great, but it ain't. It fades away in contrast to all those bigger and many minor mistakes.

A argument i hear alot is like this:

ignore the cheap mechanics available to you

Are you serious
You know what that means?

1) don't play marathon (which i always did/ but now is painfully boring)
2) don't make war (which always should be possible, that's part of the challenge/excitement -whatever victory condition you choose)
3) don't play island maps (ai is bad at sea)
4) ingnore Diplomacy (AI is schrizophenic)
5) turn barbs off (too easy kill/ too much profit from it and no real-treath)
6) turn off city-states (nice idea/ bad execution)
7) anything else i can't think of right now but i am sure there is

So, there you have it. My "game setup" to avoid the cheap game-mechanics you speak of. What kind of Victory condition you advise me then ? Can you still imagine i have any funn with such game-setup ?

Am I the only one that sees city states as a really gamey gimick??

No. I am with you on this (and alot of others)

I agree with the OP in part that CS's and the high price of fielding a military have added greatly to the civ series.

Think again and/or play some more.

1) You don't need much to raze the enemy
2) ally the militairy CS and you get a guarenteed, upteched unit from it roughly every 17 turns. That's faster then you can build you warriors, in the beginning.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jediron:

All the points you raised to making a fair game in Civ V would point similarly to Civ IV. Now, given that there are already several threads expressing what you don't like about Civ V, perhaps you can participate in this thread regarding the OP - things that Civ V did right, and that honestly, I hope.

I think that Civ V is attempting to do many things right. I like 1UPT, despite the AI weakness in it. Civ AI has always been weak, so I didn't expect much. It's about where I expected it to be.

 

[Zechnophobe]

You can use these exact 'rushing' tactics in Civ IV...

You rush in civ 4, and with the right mix of luck and difficulty, you can easily kill... maybe one neighbor. Then your economy gets hurt unless you do some other complex work to keep it alive. Civ 5, your warrior-archer or Horseman army can literally win the game.

 

[Roxlimn]

Zechnophobe:

Technically, not true in all senses. Unit speeds and values have gone up in Civ V, and that means that if you rush, you get an overwhelming military advantages that persists for a long time, and you can additionally leverage that by using tactics the AI cannot adapt to.

If you play Marathon in Civ IV, you could also technically rush with units like Horsemen and also get to the same result. The main problem in Civ IV was that units moved too slowly, so they'd be outdated by the time they got to your second opponent, in Standard Speed.

 

[lschnarch]

I think that Civ V is attempting to do many things right. I like 1UPT, despite the AI weakness in it. Civ AI has always been weak, so I didn't expect much. It's about where I expected it to be.

It has been said many times already, and if memory serves me well, even in discussions in which you were participating:
1upt is part of the problem.

We all agree that Civ4's combat AI wasn't great, either. Nobody (well, at least not many) would deny this.

But the fact of allocating big bonuses to the AI, thus making it able to create big stacks, partially compensated this.

In an 1upt environment, there isn't much of such a compensation. There are only that much units which the AI can bring into position, and the more units, the less free space to manouvre.

As soon as some space is freed due to units being killed or retreated (by the human) the AI theoratically could move forward, but proves it's incompetence by moving forward with the wrong units (weakened, ranged, sometimes even civilian units blocking the general, whatever).

I am terribly sorry about this fact, because when I first heard about the implementation of 1upt into CivV, I was excited, but the scale just doesn't fit. 1upt is just even worse than stacks for the scale of a Civ game.
Change the combat scale, improve the combat AI, and it may work.

Change the combat AI only, and still it will suffer, and due to the very nature of 1upt it will still be inferior.

Not to have realized this is Mr. Shafer's big mistake, and I don't see any solution, if he sticks with the current scale.

 

[Conspirator]

Zechnophobe:

Technically, not true in all senses. Unit speeds and values have gone up in Civ V, and that means that if you rush, you get an overwhelming military advantages that persists for a long time, and you can additionally leverage that by using tactics the AI cannot adapt to.

If you play Marathon in Civ IV, you could also technically rush with units like Horsemen and also get to the same result. The main problem in Civ IV was that units moved too slowly, so they'd be outdated by the time they got to your second opponent, in Standard Speed.

No, units just died a lot more in Civ 4, so you had to be able to produce reserves consistently to be able to fight a successful war continuously.

 

[lschnarch]

Technically, not true in all senses. Unit speeds and values have gone up in Civ V, and that means that if you rush, you get an overwhelming military advantages that persists for a long time, and you can additionally leverage that by using tactics the AI cannot adapt to.

Exactly.

If you play Marathon in Civ IV, you could also technically rush with units like Horsemen and also get to the same result. The main problem in Civ IV was that units moved too slowly, so they'd be outdated by the time they got to your second opponent, in Standard Speed.

Beg your pardon? What do you want to prove?