Why didn't like you civ5?

[Jerman]

You do know this A. has nothing do with civ 4 and B. A thread on the civ 5 forum exactly like this http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=401228 its on the civ 5 side of the site deal with this. I do like civ 5 but don't go all Izzy on me.

 

[Pangaea]

If we don't like Civ 5, we're not going into the Civ 5 forum, hence why the thread is here.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Dunno... I remember how infuriating was doubleclicking leaders faces in diplo screen with no desired result, till I figured about right click.

Is there "using reminders for dummies" guide?

Funny how nobody has pointed out the ability to Dow with no prompt because the game thinks you press alt when you aren't.

Civ 4 has plenty of objectively terrible nonsense lol...no need to attack the minor stuff when there are ui problems that can and do cost games directly.

 

[GKey]

Funny how nobody has pointed out the ability to Dow with no prompt because the game thinks you press alt when you aren't....

Wow, never happened to me, but THIS is surely a gamebreaker.

Imagine such thing in SGOTM....

 

[Pangaea]

That has never happened to me either. But it has been difficult to DoW an AI when he wouldn't talk to me. I didn't know about the Alt thing then, but thankfully he had a vassal, so I could DoW them that way.

This in itself is a fairly bad "bug"/misdesign though. It's like not being able to trade with a Friendly AI because they like you too much...

 

[Jerman]

If we don't like Civ 5, we're not going into the Civ 5 forum, hence why the thread is here.

I guess but this has nothing to do with civ 4 in my opinion. Have of this forum is "I don't like civ 5" Jesus Christ shut up and talk about civ 4 not "I don't like civ 5"

 

[calibur]

I guess but this has nothing to do with civ 4 in my opinion. Have of this forum is "I don't like civ 5" Jesus Christ shut up and talk about civ 4 not "I don't like civ 5"

 

[Robo-Star]

lol@calibur
-

I guess but this has nothing to do with civ 4 in my opinion. Have of this forum is "I don't like civ 5" Jesus Christ shut up and talk about civ 4 not "I don't like civ 5"

I thought this topic was about reasons people dislike Civ5 in comparison to Civ4...I guess it drifted, though, and the title is kinda ambiguous.

As for myself, I couldn't get past the mandatory Steam to actually play the game.
-

 

[Funky]

Have of this forum is "I don't like civ 5" Jesus Christ shut up and talk about civ 4 not "I don't like civ 5"

The more burning question is why it bothers you. You will be hanging around in the Civ 5 section if you like the game, no? You will also be avoiding the rants thread if you are clever, which I am sure you are. You are free to discuss how much you like Civ 5 over there without anyone telling you to talk about something else. Would it be preferable for you if we all came to your forum residence to discuss this topic there?

For me, the failure of Civ 5 still maintains a certain amount of interest, not only because it shows how one of the most epic series of all times can be completely destroyed by incompetence, hubris and horrible decisions. I also see it as a part of a trend - removing all complexity and ripping out soul in favour of short-term gains - which I see happening in many other areas as well. If anything, we should be more vocal about this worrisome development than less.

 

[Jeros]

Well they seem to have fixed the AI and the new expansion looks amazing.

My hours in 5 have now suprrased my hours in 4

 

[JJOne]

I play both. 4 is more complex and gives you the feeling of building an empire.
5 is pretty straightforward in all the ways, but has some nice mechanisms - social policies are nicer than civics, religions are way better, the organic growth is better. I also like the new spies. The city states became much more varied in gods&kings and are now a nice feature.
What I don't like in 5:
- diplomatic system with frequent denouncing and friendships.
- The way Great generals and great admirals work. Admirals are useless, you can reasonably use only your first two generals.

Hexes vs squares - doesn't matter.

Turn times - unreasonable long both in the civ 4 mods I play (currently C2C) and in civ 5.

1 unit per tile - is annoying when moving troops around. It becomes interesting when really fighting with these units. I played a great WW2 mod with prearranged units based on civ 5 - had quite a PG feeling. Sadly the AI still needs improvements in this area, and that's the biggest problem of the game. A human player can start poorly, may expand slowly, but wins almost every time the tactical part of war and has a chance to recover.

 

[Drakarska]

Well they seem to have fixed the AI and the new expansion looks amazing.

My hours in 5 have now suprrased my hours in 4

Just because I'm curious, "define" fixed the AI? Because the last game I watched my son play (who happens to be 13, and he played 3 days ago) on Mon, he won with absolutely no problems. The AI still made bonehead decisions, city-states were still easy to manipulate, war was still AI suiciding vs arty, and religion/spying were still one-dimensional, trade post spam, and a host of other issues.
I'm not critisizing you, or your enjoyment of the game. I'm merely curious as to what you determine a fixed AI is.

 

[Mr.Keene]

Diplomacy, it failed really horribly, in my opinion.
Military, although it was an accepted update, the A.I. didn't seem to know what to do with it in my game.
Religion, very critical to me, the lacking of stripped me of my main strategy. The game just felt naked.
Civics, where'd they go? I wondered. Governments in reality are subject to change, which in the Civ world it adds greatly to strategy.
City States, was supposed to be AWESOME to me. A small country you befriend finally(I enjoy weak allies)! Oh, uh, oops, false alarm, the relationship with City States dwindles too rapidly to reap full benefits. It's like paying somebody to be your friend..
THE ENDING, the part where you watch your whole country go from start to end along with the other civs. Missing in action. That's a really brutal blow. It's like they're saying "alright thanks for playing, bye...that's it, go away now". It's a vital part of the game for me (as I play on Epic and Marathon mode).

UGH, it could've been so much better.

 

[Jeros]

Just because I'm curious, "define" fixed the AI? Because the last game I watched my son play (who happens to be 13, and he played 3 days ago) on Mon, he won with absolutely no problems. The AI still made bonehead decisions, city-states were still easy to manipulate, war was still AI suiciding vs arty, and religion/spying were still one-dimensional, trade post spam, and a host of other issues.
I'm not critisizing you, or your enjoyment of the game. I'm merely curious as to what you determine a fixed AI is.

Well its defiantly a lot more competent than it was.

Diplomacy, it failed really horribly, in my opinion.
Military, although it was an accepted update, the A.I. didn't seem to know what to do with it in my game.
Religion, very critical to me, the lacking of stripped me of my main strategy. The game just felt naked.
Civics, where'd they go? I wondered. Governments in reality are subject to change, which in the Civ world it adds greatly to strategy.
City States, was supposed to be AWESOME to me. A small country you befriend finally(I enjoy weak allies)! Oh, uh, oops, false alarm, the relationship with City States dwindles too rapidly to reap full benefits. It's like paying somebody to be your friend..
THE ENDING, the part where you watch your whole country go from start to end along with the other civs. Missing in action. That's a really brutal blow. It's like they're saying "alright thanks for playing, bye...that's it, go away now". It's a vital part of the game for me (as I play on Epic and Marathon mode).

UGH, it could've been so much better.

You do know they added religion back with Gods and Kings right? And if you want to be good with city states you need to get the social policies to do this well.

The new expansion adds more complexity like tourism and different types of trade routes.

Lets just hope its not needless complexity like in Civ IV with the frankly infuriating health mechanic.

II is till the best however and arguably the greatest game ever made

 

[Willem]

Exactly. In the end I am quite happy it is such a bad game. Kept the temptation low to waste money on a buggy and unfinished mess - and as a bonus brought me back to Civ IV for good.

Same thing for me too basically. After I found out it required Steam I dragged my heels on buying it when it when the game first out. Then after reading up on the comments being made about it, I realized that I probably wasn't going to like it anyway. So I'm still playing Civ 4.

 

[Willem]

Lets just hope its not needless complexity like in Civ IV with the frankly infuriating health mechanic.

Health in Civ 4 was certainly a big improvement over the pollution mechanic in the previous versions. It is also a realistic aspect of civilizations. The larger the city is, the more health problems it's citizens are going to have. Simply removing it from a "civilization" game is like saying there's no difference in living in a place like Beijing or someplace like Topeko, Kansas, where the air and water is cleaner and there's less people around to spread diseases. It also removed another layer of decision making that player need to make in order to feel involved with the game. Removing health from Civ 5 was a major fail IMO, along with the various other things they took out.

 

[calibur]

Perhaps it was a bit overboard to include both city health and happiness- I wouldn't object to them being combined.

 

[mourndraken]

If the AI is broken, it would be best if they closed their shop and sold rugs instead. V destroyed the trust I had in the series. If they bring out 6, I won't buy it until an expansion or 2 comes out and it will have to have solid reviews and content before I believe. I was an easy sell, but greed and rookie design made me wise up.

 

[Willem]

Perhaps it was a bit overboard to include both city health and happiness- I wouldn't object to them being combined.

I disagree. I really don't have a problem with health in Civ4, in fact sometimes I find it too easy to maintain good levels. And if something does go wrong it's usually a simple fix, like building a Granary or Hospital. I really didn't see the need of gutting it like they did. That also nerfed 1/3 of the resources that were added in Civ 3. With no health, things like Cows or Corn become essentially meaningless. That was taking a step back Civ 2, when resources only gave you a tile bonus, nothing else.

 

[Funky]

If the AI is broken, it would be best if they closed their shop and sold rugs instead.

I wouldn't trust their rugs. They will probably feature one stitch per cloth, or be woven on a giant death loom.