Why didn't like you civ5?

[Windsor]

Balancing is one thing. It's always possible to nerf it so hard that it doesn't become overpowered. The main question is, does it actually provide good gameplay?

This feature is requested by fans on a thematic basis, but giving players this tool will devalue the importance of city placement and tiles. There's good gameplay reasons for keeping that 20-cottages-city low on production.

To me it's a bit like the request for setting science slider individually for each city in Civ4. Sure, it would be very convenient for the player, but it would destroy the game.

 

[Kallikrates]

It was the standard method of building wonders in Civ II.
But it has to be noted that there were no forges, no mills, no Great Engineers, no golden ages and not as many good production tiles (respectively super food tiles that would let you work more hills and mountains) in Civ II than there are in Civ IV. Also no whipping and no chopping.
The only production boost before late game factories was a Wonder, King Richard's Crusade, that added a shield (hammer) to every BFC tile (thus often giving you pollution in the middle ages).

Without caravans wonders would have taken forever to be built and the AI with their discounts would beat you easily to them on higher levels.

 

[Windsor]

Spoiler :

Civ5, the 3x game. Come on, it's 1260AD and no solid border has been has been formed between any two countries. All empires are split in two or more pieces with unclaimed land between them. Ramesses and Suleiman decided that 3 cities was good enough, while Askia apparentely decided that two where enough to manage.

How can this not be seen as a huge problem in Civ5s game design? On that main continent only 50% of the land has been claimed.

 

[Funky]

Spoiler :

Civ5, the 3x game. Come on, it's 1260AD and no solid border has been has been formed between any two countries. All empires are split in two or more pieces with unclaimed land between them. Ramesses and Suleiman decided that 3 cities was good enough, while Askia apparentely decided that two where enough to manage.

How can this not be seen as a huge problem in Civ5s game design? On that main continent only 50% of the land has been claimed.

I hadn't looked so carefully at the screenshot, but that is indeed horrendous.

 

[vincentz]

i think something like this is worse. Some people say civ5 is more beautiful, but when you clutter it like this, it just becomes one big mess, and not good looking in.any.way.

Spoiler :

 

[Funky]

i think something like this is worse. Some people say civ5 is more beautiful, but when you clutter it like this, it just becomes one big mess, and not good looking in.any.way.

Spoiler :

Interesting also that apart from the appalling looks of that screenshot, it's the year 2030(!) and, like in the last screenshot, large parts of the map are still empty and several civs apparently decided not to build more than 5-6 cities...

 

[J-man]

The game is tedious due to 1upt.
I don't like the social policies, civics in Civ4 are flexible as you can change them but sp's aren't.
Stupid AI.
In Civ 4 you needed really strategic city placement but in Civ 5 you just plopped them on a river.

Although I haven't got Gods & Kings so it could have been improved.

 

[Windsor]

Civ5 does have an tendency to be rather messy despite there not being that much information on the screen.

But in the 2030AD picture, grid, tile yields and resource bubbles are turned on. So is the big research bar. It's kind of obvious that the picture intentionally tries to make the game look as cluttered as possible.


Anyway, I have to say that my point with the 1260AD (a picture taken to make Civ5 look as good as possible) is not really about aesthetics. It's about gameplay and what feeling you get when playing. The important part of my screenshot is the minimap.

The land not filling up is not just a visual issue, its a game design issue. 1260AD is well into the mid-game and at that point you should have solid empires, not just some scattered villages. Borders and relations should be stable and so on. Further expansion is limited to conquest or exploring new continents. The land filling up is actually what should cause the tension and large-scale wars between empires.

The minimap of the 2030AD game is of course even more ridiculous. It's like only having the US, Brazil and Venezula in the entire americas with the rest of the land simply unclaimed.

 

[Lord Silverkey]

It was the standard method of building wonders in Civ II.
But it has to be noted that there were no forges, no mills, no Great Engineers, no golden ages and not as many good production tiles (respectively super food tiles that would let you work more hills and mountains) in Civ II than there are in Civ IV. Also no whipping and no chopping.

Very good points.

The only production boost before late game factories was a Wonder, King Richard's Crusade, that added a shield (hammer) to every BFC tile (thus often giving you pollution in the middle ages).

This was always so funny.

Without caravans wonders would have taken forever to be built and the AI with their discounts would beat you easily to them on higher levels.

Wonders didn't take as long as you would think without caravans, but I always did hate it when the AI cheated.

Anyway, I have to say that my point with the 1260AD (a picture taken to make Civ5 look as good as possible) is not really about aesthetics. It's about gameplay and what feeling you get when playing. The important part of my screenshot is the minimap.

The land not filling up is not just a visual issue, its a game design issue. 1260AD is well into the mid-game and at that point you should have solid empires, not just some scattered villages. Borders and relations should be stable and so on. Further expansion is limited to conquest or exploring new continents. The land filling up is actually what should cause the tension and large-scale wars between empires.

The minimap of the 2030AD game is of course even more ridiculous. It's like only having the US, Brazil and Venezula in the entire americas with the rest of the land simply unclaimed.

Hear, hear. It reminds me of playing Civ 2 on Chieftain. I wonder if the game designers tried to dial back the Civ 4 expansion speed of the AI and overcompensated, because they were very good at filling up every available space rather quickly, even on the easier difficulty levels.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

Did you ever play Civ 3??
The expansion speed of the ai was like 10x as fast there.

Civ4 is relatively well paced in comparison.

 

[vincentz]

But in the 2030AD picture, grid, tile yields and resource bubbles are turned on. So is the big research bar. It's kind of obvious that the picture intentionally tries to make the game look as cluttered as possible.

nope, I took it from a random thread in civ5 forum. The point of the thread wasnt about graphics but a describing a playthrough.
But alot of the screenies i see from civ5 have all icons/tags/indicators turned on. Especially the unit icon is almost always turned on, coz its pretty much impossible to see what is what without it.

Did you ever play Civ 3??
The expansion speed of the ai was like 10x as fast there.

Civ4 is relatively well paced in comparison.

If I remember correctly, the expanding AIs in civ3 was what killed it for me.
Sometimes I would hurry to get my continent settled, but maybe a single tile would be uncovered. And ofcourse the AI would sail halfway around the world to settle a city on that one tile

 

[Camikaze]

But alot of the screenies i see from civ5 have all icons/tags/indicators turned on. Especially the unit icon is almost always turned on, coz its pretty much impossible to see what is what without it.

I think this is because screenshots are trying to convey as much information as possible in one image, when in game, you'd go through different screens, or look at the information piece by piece. I would no have the resource icons turned on in a game, for instance, but if I was demonstrating something, or showing people what was on the map, I would.

 

[calibur]

I think this is because screenshots are trying to convey as much information as possible in one image, when in game, you'd go through different screens, or look at the information piece by piece. I would no have the resource icons turned on in a game, for instance, but if I was demonstrating something, or showing people what was on the map, I would.

As many do in civ4. But generally only in regards to settling. Which clearly was not what was happening here.

 

[happyturtle]

I prefer IV, but most of my friends prefer V. I know one of them (a guy I got hooked on the game with IV) specifically mentioned that he likes it because of the better graphics.

I think IV has more complexity, and that's why I enjoy it. I've had different types of wins, with different types of strategies. I've built tall empires, wide empires, religious ones, spy based, super science, super culture, and so on. I'm working on the Hall of Fame Quattromaster's Challenge and having a ball working through the leaders. I can win fairly consistently at Monarch, though occasionally I eek out a higher level win. I think I could play for years without getting tired of the game. I played a bit of vanilla V when it first came out, but eventually I realized I'd rather start up IV than V, and I haven't really gone back since.

 

[Steamwerks]

i think something like this is worse. Some people say civ5 is more beautiful, but when you clutter it like this, it just becomes one big mess, and not good looking in.any.way.

Spoiler :

It looks like a really bad old-school WoW UI!