Why didn't like you civ5?

[Rusty Edge]

Well, it's been a while since the last time I played Civ3... I remember I liked much better the graphics from Civ3 over those of Civ4, it took me a while to switch because of that. At first I think Civ3PTW was superior to Civ4 Vanilla in different aspects, but they were fixing and adding features with the expansions so Civ4BTS is far superior to Civ3 in almost everything I would say.

Maybe one thing that I don't like so much of Civ4 is the "Suicide Siege", I liked the way Siege worked in Civ3, but maybe the new mechanics are necessary to keep the balance of the gameplay.... although not comepletely sure.

Also I miss some units, buildings and wonders, I don't remember all of them, but it comes to my mind Guerrilla Fighters and Leonardo's Workshop just to say some.

Now that you mention them, I would like to see those elements returned to the series, also.

I liked the way III seige hit random targets. I might destroy population or the very buildings I wanted to capture instead of weakening defenses and troops. The risks of seige. I also like that seige could be captured.

I completely forgot about guerilla fighters. I thought they were an idea that needed refining. Likewise, Leonardo's workship was overpowered . But better to rebalance it than scrap it. If you build it in SP it just counteracts the A.I.'s instant upgrade bonus.

Thanks for your answer!

 

[Manco Capac]

Hmmm don't like the return of siege destroying buildings. Buildings are costly and seeing those burnt down by some sieges in an unkillable stack is pretty unbalanced.

 

[RD-BH]

... FTL is just as impossible as it is for a ... ton of lead weight to spontaneously levitate. ...

Last time I checked, both FTL and spontaneous levitation of a mass were mathematically possible.

As long as E=mc^2, pretty much anything is possible.
Humans may not be able to manage it, but a 'super-dimensional being'[see note] with an unlimited source of energy shouldn't have a problem.

[note] I use 'super-dimensional being' loosely here. I really mean a 'super-dimensional intelligent entity existing outside our universal matrix'.

Just sayin' 8)

 

[calibur]

The deal with FTL travel is that the closer to light-speed you get, the great energy you have. Precisely because of E=MC^2, the energy will start making your (ship?) heavier and heavier, making it progressively more difficult to approach light-speed as you approach light-speed.

 

[Funky]

I'm no physicist, and my interest in this stuff has more to do with fascination than with understanding. But while I think that most of us are aware of the causality violations of FTL according to conventional physics, there are certainly plenty of physicists who research "outside of the box". Opinions have been voiced which say that theory of relativity may not be unalterable foundation of the universe afterall. Respected scientists have done research on things like beaming, time travel, wormholes etc. Maybe these things are all impossible, just as FTL seems to be at the moment. But I find it rather arrogant to believe that our limited human understanding, with higher physics being a scientific discipline for barely more than 100 years, has already "solved" the nature of the universe.

This reminds me of the ultra deep field project. In late 2003, the Hubble space telescope was pointed at a tiny dark spec of the universe, in which there were no known stars or other celestial bodies. It scanned this little spec for several months, going deeper and deeper into the unknown universe during the process, in order to find traces of a deceased star or such, to find hints about the early development of the universe.
Well, not one star was found, or ten, or one hundred - but 10.000 galaxies. Each containing hundreds of billions stars! Using this method to scan the entire sky would take millions of years. Which makes me shudder in view of what is all out there that we have absolutely no conception of.
I like this example because it shows us how much we don't know. In fact, what we do know is so little that it is hardly measurable in comparison to the vast and incomprehensible amount of what we don't know.

That's not to say that the laws of nature are incorrect. But I prefer the more modest approach to our own knowledge in saying that under today's circumstances and the evidence available to us, it seems likely that our ideas of laws of nature and universal constants are correct. Yet since there is so much that we don't know, we must always take into consideration that the possibility exists that we are wrong.

 

[AdamCrock]

Well first of all Civ 5 sucks (I believe I am entitled to my own opinion). My stomach does not digest 1 unit per tile so it's mainly narrowed down to that issue. Untill it is resolved (and the guy responsible fired - we all know who is Panzer General fan here) I will not porbably digest Civ 6

 

[gps]

That's not to say that the laws of nature are incorrect. But I prefer the more modest approach to our own knowledge in saying that under today's circumstances and the evidence available to us, it seems likely that our ideas of laws of nature and universal constants are correct. Yet since there is so much that we don't know, we must always take into consideration that the possibility exists that we are wrong.

Like so many other topics (for example also Civ V) - I once again wholehearteldy agree with everything you said.

 

[mynystry]

I liked the way III seige hit random targets. I might destroy population or the very buildings I wanted to capture instead of weakening defenses and troops. The risks of seige. I also like that seige could be captured.

Absolutely; capturing enemy catapults was good fun, and also it is much more realistic that siege hits troops, civilians and buildings alike, and wouldn't "destroy themselves" after firing.

Guerrillas were cool, I don't remember them to be so overpowered. In Civ4 they could be a bit weaker than infantry but with woodsman and guerilla promos, a hard nut to crack in hills and jungles, as they are in reality. They would be awesome if they had something like Hidden Nationality (as Privateers), but that you could unveil them via espionage with diplomatic penalties, of course their stacking should be limited.

Also partisans were fun, suddenly groups of civilians would take arms in order to defend their country. And I just remembered the "Fanatics" unit... oh yeah baby!

Also, maybe I cannot remember correctly, but I remember the diplomacy system was not so crappy as in Civ4, they could make some real improvements there, as with espionage.

I think they had a lot of base material to make a great Civ5... unfortunately they decided to go the other way and mess the game up

 

[SyntaxError]

Well first of all Civ 5 sucks (I believe I am entitled to my own opinion). My stomach does not digest 1 unit per tile so it's mainly narrowed down to that issue. Untill it is resolved (and the guy responsible fired - we all know who is Panzer General fan here) I will not porbably digest Civ 6

Last time I checked, Shaefer no longer works for Firaxis.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Hmmm don't like the return of siege destroying buildings. Buildings are costly and seeing those burnt down by some sieges in an unkillable stack is pretty unbalanced.

That may well have been the reason for the change.

I just thought it added a realistic dilema. Do I sacrifice footsoldiers taking the city and hope to take it intact and assimilate it soon? OR Do I spend time reducing the defenses, while running the risk of killing civilians, destroying their cathedrals, creating much unhappiness and making the city of little use to my empire?

Now the cultural buildings are automatically removed. That doesn't make sense to me when you share a religion.

 

[MilesBeyond]

diplomacy system was not so crappy as in Civ4, they could make some real improvements there, as with espionage.

I don't know what you're talking about because IMHO Civ4 diplo is light years ahead of Civ III. Any diplo system where I could trade resources or GPT for gold or techs, then immediately cancel the trade, meaning that I effectively got that gold and/or tech for free is incredibly broken.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I don't know what you're talking about because IMHO Civ4 diplo is light years ahead of Civ III. Any diplo system where I could trade resources or GPT for gold or techs, then immediately cancel the trade, meaning that I effectively got that gold and/or tech for free is incredibly broken.

Sure.

On the other hand, cheating the A.I. is only cheating oneself of a competitive game, and in multiplayer, cheating the others will have it's own penalties. Hall of Fame , Game of the Month, succession games and what not would develop rules against it, I imagine, but I can't really remember.


But if they can make it impossible to delare war for a set number of turns, why couldn't they do the same with such a trade? Wouldn't that be the sensible way to approach the problem, repair what was broken? Or what if they made it so all nations refused to trade with a cheater for the rest of the game?

Instead they removed the abillity to make mixed trades entirely, when there are often times when such trades could be mutually beneficial.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Guerrillas were cool, I don't remember them to be so overpowered. In Civ4 they could be a bit weaker than infantry but with woodsman and guerilla promos, a hard nut to crack in hills and jungles, as they are in reality. They would be awesome if they had something like Hidden Nationality (as Privateers), but that you could unveil them via espionage with diplomatic penalties, of course their stacking should be limited.

Also partisans were fun, suddenly groups of civilians would take arms in order to defend their country.

Agreed, although we are probably in the minority on those features.

 

[Windsor]

On the other hand, cheating the A.I. is only cheating oneself of a competitive game, and in multiplayer, cheating the others will have it's own penalties. Hall of Fame , Game of the Month, succession games and what not would develop rules against it, I imagine, but I can't really remember.

But it's not cheating. It's smart diplomacy. You should never have to add self-imposed rules.

But if they can make it impossible to delare war for a set number of turns, why couldn't they do the same with such a trade? Wouldn't that be the sensible way to approach the problem, repair what was broken?

Because it would create an even bigger exploit.

Don't want to get dragged into that war between Catherine and Monty? Well, just make a trade. Afraid Shaka is going to declare war on you? Make a trade and your safe!

Instead they removed the abillity to make mixed trades entirely, when there are often times when such trades could be mutually beneficial.

Well, then you can just drop the slider for a few turns to get the needed gold. It's of course possible to solve the problem with extensive AI-coding and adding lots of other arbitrary rules. Instead Civ4 solved the issue with one simple rule.

 

[Rusty Edge]

But it's not cheating. It's smart diplomacy. You should never have to add self-imposed rules.

Oh. I use a lot of self-imposed rules.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

But it's not cheating. It's smart diplomacy. You should never have to add self-imposed rules.

IMO self-imposed rules are kind of a pseudonym for role playing, which a lot of civ'ers do whether they realize it or not. Basically it's a way to make the game play cater more directly to your tastes and remind yourself that it's a game, the rules are arbitrary.

Oh. I use a lot of self-imposed rules.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[Windsor]

IMO self-imposed rules are kind of a pseudonym for role playing, which a lot of civ'ers do whether they realize it or not. Basically it's a way to make the game play cater more directly to your tastes and remind yourself that it's a game, the rules are arbitrary.

And that's totally fine. Players are of course free to play the game the way they prefer.

However if you have to roleplay then it's not ok. That's objectively bad game design for a strategy game (or any competitive game).

 

[traius]

Then you are mistaken. Any FTL travel directly implies causality violation.



Which is not the position I'm advancing, of course. What I'm saying is that if you're willing to suggest any given bit of science might be wrong, you can make anything possible. In most FPSes you can survive being shot several times - why, that is possible, because it might be the case that half of biology and medicine is wrong and if you eat enough homeopathic bullet pills, you won't care about being shot. Civ 5's 1UPT? Why, maybe tomorrow the repulsive force between electrons will change to be a repulsive force between military units, and what do you know, it's perfectly realistic after all!

Of course we could be wrong, but we could be wrong about anything (and Einstein's relativity is on pretty solid ground as such things go). If "impossible" is to mean anything at all, then a game that depicts FTL travel depicts something impossible.

Damerell is 100% right. Take it from a physics major. FTL implies all sorts of mathematically impossible scenarios.

 

[Jeros]

Has anyone who disliked the performance or display of CiV tried the 2D strategic view? I know many who play entirely in that.

Personally I like V over IV, it did away with the two most annoying things about IV to me, city health and SoD. Its not that SoD are inherently wrong, but other civ games and Alpha Centuri did them much better. Also the return of ranged combat from the Call to Power games pleases me as it fits my playstyle.

Having played the series since II, with the addition of Gods and Kings the game feels worthy of the name.

The only thing I might like back from IV is transport ships (maybe) and vassal states.

Also I prefer the combat methods of 5 in the broader sense, creating a stack of units bigger than everyone else in 4 and just stomping all over the map was less fun to me. In 5 I actually use the terrain, look for choke points and such, especially when you have an army 3-4 times the size bearing down on you, the AI stupidity is moot on the higher difficulty's when they have enough bonuses to force you to rely on your human mind to survive.

Also feeding a city state with units on another continent is fun to fight proxy wars.

 

[calibur]

I would like an example of a macro choke-point IRL, because Thermopylae is not big enough to put on a map