1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What do you dislike about civ 5?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by civnoob13, Oct 20, 2010.


What do you want to see changed in ciV?

  1. The AI needs to be fixed in terms of war

    135 vote(s)
  2. The AI should get better with difficulty level, not just cheat

    84 vote(s)
  3. The AI has to understand game mechanics better

    105 vote(s)
  4. The AI should be less hypocritical

    82 vote(s)
  5. Diplomacy should be more transparent

    110 vote(s)
  6. You should be able to actually make friends with the AI

    121 vote(s)
  7. The AI should learn how to use CS's probably

    93 vote(s)
  8. CS's need to be made less powerful

    64 vote(s)
  9. CS's need to be more complex

    77 vote(s)
  10. The balance between tech and production should be addressed

    107 vote(s)
  11. The tech tree should be more realistic

    72 vote(s)
  12. The social policies should be more complex

    51 vote(s)
  13. The social policies should be replaced with civics

    26 vote(s)
  14. Civics should be introduced alongside SP's

    47 vote(s)
  15. Cottages should be reintroduced

    67 vote(s)
  16. 1UPT should be scrapped

    23 vote(s)
  17. 1UPT should only apply to military

    58 vote(s)
  18. 1UPT should be calculated per civ (multiple civs on the same tile)

    32 vote(s)
  19. Wonder movies should be reintroduced

    55 vote(s)
  20. Graphs and extra detail should be added to understand you civ better

    98 vote(s)
  21. The mini movie that shows how civs developed at the end of the game should be reintroduced

    101 vote(s)
  22. Health should be reintroduced

    65 vote(s)
  23. BTS features should be reintroduced

    69 vote(s)
  24. Something Else

    35 vote(s)
  25. CiV is fine how it is

    10 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Jul 29, 2010
    So I decided it would be a good idea to at least attempt to summarise the main problems with this game. For all options you do not agree with, you are essentially saying that you are fine with them.

    Apologies for anything missed, but polls cannot be altered to my knowledge.

    Something I forgot about which is very important is building/wonders; many of them are useless.
    Another one I forgot about is the improvements for some resources are significantly worse than a normal one
    And I forgot another extremely important one: game speed
  2. Guru-Meditation

    Guru-Meditation Chieftain

    Oct 9, 2010
    Things that come to mind spontaneously:

    * Food "bonus" resources are mostly irrelevant when planing city placement.
    * A.I. gets angry at you no matter what. Seeks reasons to hate you.
    - Lies in your face. Amass troops at your border? I dont even know the location of your cities.
    - Walks through half an empty continent to settles next to your Capital, just to claim you settle to close to him.
    - Asks you to help him in a war, aborts treats next turn "because you are a warmonger" if you actually help him.
    - You get attacked, you defend yourself - A.I.s will call you "the bloodthirsty one".
    - I conquer a city. Next turn A.I. will complain that i broke my word not to settle close to him.
    - March army to take a city state. A.I. complains about amassing at border i am passing by. Truthfully say i´m not about to attack you. So far so good. 80 turns later he gobbles up a neighbor civ of mine and i attack him as he gets dangerouly big. Result: I am branded as a liar, as i did indeed attack him "sometime later"....
    * Ridiculous discrepancy between research speed and build times.
    * Calling the economic victory "diplomatic victory"
    * Infinity City Sprawl going large again.
    * Bad city growth speed past size ~12.
    * Trade Outpost the dominant tile improvement.
    * Most buildings not worth being build.
    * Puppets love building Stables, Baracks, Armory.
    * No friendly A.I.: Knows only scheming, angry and war as attitudes towards you.
    * Intransparent diplomacy.
  3. Haig

    Haig Deity

    Aug 3, 2010
    My first weeks' ecstacy is beginning to worn off from Civ V a bit too fast, for me the main problem (along with the poor combat A.I.) that there simply isn't much to do other than warring or pressing end turn while waiting a new tech to be discovered.

    In Civ IV (BTS) there's so much going on in the world, and while some stuff of espionage and religion is flawed they still add versability.
    Moving spies was pretty clumsy but the operations are interesting and so is thinking about how much of a religious civ I'm going to be.
    Small stuff like Apostolic and U.N. resolutions are important for me too.

    Oh and I want random events back too..:)
  4. da_Vinci

    da_Vinci Gypsy Prince

    Jun 13, 2004
    Maryland, USA
    Excellent poll, the items you list are quite relevant. I think this will be useful for improving the game.

    Now that I am getting over my "Really !?! with Seth and Amy" moment, I am looking for ways to help this infant Civ V grow up.

  5. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Jul 29, 2010
    This is why we should be given the option to modify polls

    This is just about covered with the hypocritical A.I.

    This is slightly covered with the AI options.

    Isn't this resolved by making the A.I. use CSs properly?
    Yet again, I wish polls could be edited (and options increased)
    Hasn't this been always the case?
    It looks like this will be addressed with the new patch, and having cottages would also help.
    Damn, a very important one forgotten.

    I think the new patch will address this

    I am just using this as a checklist, so glad to see I didn't do too badly.

    And darn, I just remembered I forgot about making wonders more interesting.
  6. Dishonor

    Dishonor Chieftain

    Jan 23, 2010
    Nice poll
  7. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Jun 8, 2008
    Washington, DC
    Wow, a lot of things on here are just terrible, or naive.

    No game has ever done this.
    There is a limit to how good they can make an AI. The AI will never be a challenge to the human without cheats. So having artificial bonuses are the only way to ever make high difficulty levels.

    So vague as to be meaningless.

    This is a settled issue. There is no way this is changing.

    The main balance issues (strength of horsemen, Maritime city states - not military or cultural, puppets, ICS, difficulty in getting few megacities rather than many medium cities) aren't even on here.
  8. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Feb 8, 2009
    Wow, I must really not be a fanboi after all. I think I checked at least 40% of those boxes :D
  9. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Jul 29, 2010
    All it would take is a little bit of research. Because it is so much easier to just give the AI bonuses, of course that is what will be done, but you are truly ignorant if you think that in this day and age something as simple as making the AI work better is impossible. All it would take is a little effort.

    Clearly you have not been reading these forums that much. Do you expect that I can give an in-depth explanation for each point? Go to other posts and you can see where the options come from.

    Yet many posts are going on and on about it. This poll shows that the complainers are in the minority.

    Jesus christ, think before you write. If the AI just built a few spearmen, as in, were better at war and understood game mechanics better, horesman would be nowhere near as OP.

    Yes, there is an option to make CS's less powerful.

    And if polls weren't limited to 25 options, they would be.

    You just have to find something to complain about, don't you?
  10. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Oct 10, 2008
    Making the AI better is fine. The problem with "higher level = better AI" means "lower AI = dumber AI". So civ4 made it fine - the AI is the exact same at settler as at Deity, just Deity has a lot more to work with.
  11. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Jun 8, 2008
    Washington, DC
    Uhh... no. You seem to have no idea how hard AI design is. And as UWHabs said: higher level = better AI" means "lower AI = dumber AI".
    Can they make it a bit better than it is now? Sure. But they will never be able to make it competitive with a human player without cheats.

    Please point to any complex strategy game where the AI is challenging to the human without cheats.

    The AI does build lots of spearman on higher difficulty levels. But no matter how many they build, horseman still have 4 movement points and 12 base strength. Spearman with 1 promotion vs horseman = 7*2.2 = 15.4. Horseman with 1 promotion = 12*1.2 = 16.8.
    Add in great generals, flanking (much easier with high move units) and the spearmen don't have a chance. Its not an AI issue, its a balance issue.

    But non-Maritime city states do not need to be less powerful. They are not overpowered.

    Then take out useless options that aren't going to happen (Wonder movies should be reintroduced, health should be reintroduced) and put in real ones.

    Heh. Your whole thread is trying to find things to complain about.
  12. JP1

    JP1 Warlord

    Nov 11, 2009
    Atlanta, GA
    You could do small things here and there to make improvements in the AI... But asking the AI to never receive any bonuses and somehow still play as well as a human is bordering on impossible. Doing so would require:

    1. Programming in ridiculous amounts of domain specific knowledge which would take a large amount of human effort to figure out, ridiculous amounts of tweaking to balance it and reduce it to some kind of equation which spits out the correct moves for the computer to make, and would would require further massive tweaks whenever a new feature (say, espionage) is introduced.


    2. Using a brute-force processing power approach to make the best moves with repeated simulations, which would require either processing power which doesn't exist in today's home computers, or coming up with accurate reductions which could be repeated with brute-force methods, which again would require large amounts of human effort and future tweaking, if it were even possible to do so.

    Anything else, and you're assuming some incredible capabilities which simply don't exist in today's AI.


    My votes were for the usual:
    Better Diplomacy which feels actually deterministic and player-driven. (Not, "Montezuma and I decided to form a Pact of Secrecy against you today... So I'm going to use my angry face when talking with you, silly human.")

    Basic improvements to the A.I. (Not enough to make it play at a human level without handicaps, but there's some very dumb mistakes it makes, especially regarding troop movement.)
  13. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Sep 30, 2010
    I agree making an ai that actually scales to the difficulty is a little wishful thinking at this time. I enjoyed the poll and selected about half of them. I also understood what they meant and realize that to avoid a 2 page long poll a little generalization is needed. Interesting how the complainer just threw his milk and cookies at you but did not create his own poll.

    The ai understanding game mechanics is the big one I think. It needs to be able to run it's economy better instead of spamming happiness and thus it would have the funds to use CS's more often. The ablility to build an airforce and to utilize a navy properly would also be big improvements.

    The other biggy is diplomacy. The ability to actually befriend the ai would definitly help with immersion and a sense of team work. As it is diplomacy right now is nothing but a trading tool for the human player to manipulate. My games can typically be called a mixture of nothing but hot and cold wars.

    One thing I thought you missed was on balancing of UB's. The Aztecs and Iroqiuos really get the shaft. Could make an argument for balancing UA's as well. The Ottomans and British are not very happy with their UA's. My main point here is that some UB's/UA's are useful all the time while others are situational.
  14. Preytor

    Preytor Warlord

    Oct 21, 2006
    My main gripe with CiV is "Something Else". That Something Else is MP combat.

    CiV is a turn based game, and in SP we have turn based combat of course. Yet, when I tried MP I discovered that combat becomes a click fest RTS, while the rest of the game is still turn based...

    I have no idea if they will fix/change this, thus I have no idea if I'll ever be playing MP. It's a shame really, I love CiV and have always been an SP player, but I was really looking forward to some MP action.
    Feels like a bit of a rip off paying for a game and only using SP (cause MP combat is fail IMO). It'd be nice to get some of my money back, but it's my choice..
  15. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Jun 8, 2008
    Washington, DC
  16. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Sep 30, 2010
    Your link shows a very well thought out list of game changes (in which I find myself agreeing with most of them) and thanks for posting it as I missed that thread.
    Now back to this poll.
  17. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Jul 29, 2010
    Well clearly what you are writing is better. But the whole point of this poll is to actually give the developers some insight into what most people are thinking. It is all well and good posting a link for changes admittedly far better than mine, but it is completely useless if you won't put it in a format that people can use. By all means, create a poll, it
    would be better than this one and would take around 2 minutes.
  18. Countmonte8242

    Countmonte8242 Warlord

    Oct 25, 2005
    Lol at anybody that voted for it being essentially perfect. 5 votes so far... probably that charon guy on 5 different accounts.
  19. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Jan 8, 2006
    CS should not be there to begin with, or atleast only becoming availible at a later age. More variaty in CS strenght would be more interresting. Just three types, all with the same "strenghts" just doesn't cut it.
  20. man-erg

    man-erg Warlord

    Nov 18, 2006
    I actually like these features as historically, this is how all the leading civilizations actually behave! Big bullies full of hyprocisy and lies. Did any civilisations form through being 'nice, honest and fair" to the peoples they conquered?

Share This Page