Why didn't like you civ5?

[TheMeInTeam]

Crawls is relative. I'm comparing how it's handling rendered 3d stuff to starcraft. The primary problem, as you say, is not graphical but rather computational...lots and lots of unnecessary crap and then it doesn't manage its usage timing well either as you say.

I still see very long and unnecessary delays after moving a unit though, before I am allowed to select the following unit. What is it calculating? The unit has already moved (so not rendering issue), animations are off, there's no reason it should be such a struggle to select the next unit but it can take up to a few seconds and definitely depends to an extent on map size...hmm.

 

[Biz_]

civ 5 isn't a video game. it only functions as a simulation of empire

the design is fine. the rules are fine. the strategies are fine. (they aren't perfect, but I'm not some arbitrary complainer who doesn't understand what strategy is and bashes the game for being different)

it just doesn't function because you cannot play with opponents without going through play-by-email

there is no AI. there is no functional multiplayer

 

[Nials]

civ 5 isn't a video game. it only functions as a simulation of empire

I could not disagree more!

 

[reddishrecue]

Economic reasons why one couldn't obtain civ 5. Civ 5 could be fine but if civ 4 could help out with the economy in the real world for the civ 5 that would be good, but since these games are only simulations. Civ 5 looks good, but I can't say that I don't like it because I've never used it.

 

[Pangaea]

I suppose Civ 5 is a better simulation of history.

Everything is much slower.

 

[Pisskop]

^^^And the ai is petty. Not like the 'omg you refused to declare on your neighbor with the giant stack of archers' petty either.

 

[calad]

I suppose Civ 5 is a better simulation of history.

Everything is much slower.

The Stonehenge and Oracle were definetly built in Medieval Age

^^^And the ai is petty. Not like the 'omg you refused to declare on your neighbor with the giant stack of archers' petty either.

Im sorry but tactical AI is horrible. It cannot even produce military units under siege, it prefer workers.

Diplomacy is also horrible because AI will be hostile whatever you do. Maybe it is designed to act like a human player but what is the point of diplomatic or space victory? Human player will never let you do that, nor will AI.

 

[CivLuvah]

I once had Civ5 and G&K on my netbook. Obviously my netbook can't take the big size and the specs needed for Civ5 to run smoothly. Technical difficulties aside, there are other reasons why I uninstalled Civ5.

Number one is the AI. But of course eveyone knows that. Second is India in the game. I've played as Gandhi several times, each a different srategy, but the civ's still incredibly slow to keep up with the rest of the world. It's not FAIR. I smell a conspiracy...

Third is no unit stacking. I LOVE to stack units. It's simpler and easier to maneuver around the map. Having to send every newly-built troop from every city without stacking is torture.

So there. The reasons why I decided to switch back to Civ4.

 

[caketastydelish]

I really like Civ V for the most part but my complaint seems to be an unusual one: I think the scenarios are not as fun as they could be. Civ IV has all kinds of great scenarios, especially from beyond the sword. RFC was amazing. The only Civ V scenario I can truly say I enjoyed was the fall of Rome one.

 

[Windsor]

To rant a bit more. Puppet cities have to be one of the most fundamentally stupid features in Civ5.

An Empire Builder where you don't get to choose whats being built. Yay! Like a shooter where you can't shoot.

 

[Abegweit]

They're just incredibly badly implemented. They would make a lot of sense in the Civ4 model.

 

[dowd001]

They're just incredibly badly implemented. They would make a lot of sense in the Civ4 model.

Puppet Cities are necessitated by the combination of global happiness and building costs in Civ V and wouldn't make sense or even be needed without those two design aspects. You puppet them to control the impact of war on global happiness and then cut building time down in order to decrease the growth of city costs over time.

In Civ IV, buildings do not cost anything and there is no global happiness. In Civ V, Puppet Cities are put in place not to expand gameplay, but rather to create a mechanic that allows conquering cities that does not also mess up the carefully crafted gold and happiness limitations, while at the same time creating a mechanic that limits unit production. In other words, its in the game not to expand the gameplay, but to make up for a design flaw.

Puppet Cities are another example of how the 1UPT change had radical downstream (and mostly negative) effects.

 

[Abegweit]

Puppets have nothing to do with 1UPT. They're all about global happiness. Civ4 city maintenance is a global expense too so that's why they would fit into the model.

 

[dowd001]

Puppets have nothing to do with 1UPT. They're all about global happiness. Civ4 city maintenance is a global expense too so that's why they would fit into the model.

They have everything to do with 1UPT. I think the relationship between 1UPT and global happiness is under-discussed and very important. You have to ask this: why did they switch from using city maintenance costs to global happiness as the expansion limiting factor? Reason: Global happiness (or so they thought) would limit production more. They needed to limit production in order to limit units on the map. This is part of the reason why Shafer says that he thought that expanding the map fourfold would have gone a long way to solve the Civ V issues - because it frees up the ability to produce more.

Global Happiness was a mechanic that was meant to force players into a vertical empire. It failed at doing that. (See Sulla's commentary). But the underlying reason why they wanted to force players into a vertical empire is because of the decreasing marginal return on production as cities grew. In less complicated terms, smaller cities can produce more shields per population than larger cities can as a result of the +shield bonuses of buildings.

Too many cities leads to unit spam. The designers did not want you parallel tracking ten melee units in ten cities, they wanted you to build two units in two cities.

This is why the switch from corruption/city mainenance costs to global happiness/building maintenance costs made sense. Again, it was meant to limit production in cities because without those limitations, the map was overrun with units by the middle eras.

So what they did with puppet cities is make the penalty in happiness high enough that almost everyone would puppet them - decreasing the risk of creating unit spam. (They failed at this in G&K with changes to the courthouse together with the easy revenue from resource sales).

The changes to empire limitation mechanics to one ruled by global unhappiness only begins to make sense when you realize that they are trying to limit production more effectively in Civ V. The reason they are doing that is...1UPT.

 

[MilesBeyond]

To rant a bit more. Puppet cities have to be one of the most fundamentally stupid features in Civ5.

An Empire Builder where you don't get to choose whats being built. Yay! Like a shooter where you can't shoot.

I see Puppet States as being similar to Civ 3's Golden Ages: A completely flawed feature that, with some TLC, has the potential to become a great addition.

 

[Abegweit]

It's amazing to think that Civ5 screwed up Golden Ages too. The Civ3 version was better.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To rant a bit more. Puppet cities have to be one of the most fundamentally stupid features in Civ5.

An Empire Builder where you don't get to choose whats being built. Yay! Like a shooter where you can't shoot.

All you'd need is an instant kill knife lunge and 200 ms of lag compensation! Oh wait...

Puppets are a bad excuse for an attempt to made wide empires slightly more viable.

But wide empires are still consistently inferior based on everything I have read. I somehow lost access to civ V on steam.

 

[Mike.doc]

I'd like play Civ4 with the Civ5's interface.

 

[Abegweit]

Not me. Maybe civ4 with the Civ3 interface.

 

[Mike.doc]

No, I just meant to play Civ 4 with the Civ5 graphic interface .