Why I am getting bored with this game....

[r_rolo1]

I remember reading in Soren's blog maybe two years ago his take on unit and tech tree balance design ( obviously the one he had tried to implement on civ IV ) . He said that it was a pretty standart empirical rule in the gaming industry to try to have at all times 7 techs and 7 basic unit types or something very close from it. Less than that the game would center in the better of those options and look formulaic ,more than that and the casual player would get lost in between the plentiful options...

Civ V has clear areas where you have far less than 7 techs avaliable if you follow pretty standart paths ( like going through the bottom of the tech tree upt to dynamite ) and in almost all the game you have less than 7 unit types avaliable ( and this including the worker and the settler ). Result: combat moves around having certain units and the tech pace instead of smooth , feels like a griping car at times....

 

[Jediron]

I know playing Huge/Marathon things slow down, but come on guys: i own a continent, 21 cities and my advisor tells me for the first time i should buy a Library. I mean, it's 1300AD

And for the record, for the "fun" i do build only what the advisor recommends all the time (except a few militairy, i mean few/less then five)

 

[PieceOfMind]

I agree that Horsemen are very powerful, but there's no way (in my eyes) to chose AH as first tech. Third one, ok...

First, in Civ4 (always having played on the biggest maps available) Hunting was powerful because of the Scouts > grabbing huts.

Second, I think that the *first* techs should offer equally powerful options. Everything behind is so much influenced by the circumstances that you cannot really say, having tech E is always better than having tech G.
But for the initial ones A,B,C and D, you should avoid having B and C as less attractive ones, as it results in fact in only having two viable choices.

Fair enough. I will just say though, going for hunting so you can build scouts to pop huts was not a very viable strategy at higher difficulties, where it was almost guaranteed that huts would be popped long before you got to them, by any of those several units the AIs start with. Most serious high level players turned huts off anyway.

 

[lschnarch]

Fair enough. I will just say though, going for hunting so you can build scouts to pop huts was not a very viable strategy at higher difficulties, where it was almost guaranteed that pops would be popped long before you got to them, by any of those several units the AIs start with. Most serious high level players turned huts off anyway.

As I said, I always played on the biggest available maps. And maybe I wasn't a high skilled Civ4 player. I am not going to pretend that I was.

But now I am playing Civ0.V on immortal level and doing fine. I think that is something to be really concerned about.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I agree that Horsemen are very powerful, but there's no way (in my eyes) to chose AH as first tech. Third one, ok...

First, in Civ4 (always having played on the biggest maps available) Hunting was powerful because of the Scouts > grabbing huts.

Second, I think that the *first* techs should offer equally powerful options. Everything behind is so much influenced by the circumstances that you cannot really say, having tech E is always better than having tech G.
But for the initial ones A,B,C and D, you should avoid having B and C as less attractive ones, as it results in fact in only having two viable choices.

Oh come ON! You'd be destroying the whole game design - to make the game think for you. Should I attack AI unit with archers first, and then finish them with melee? Oh wait, it's Nobunaga's units, so it's no brainer that I should finish them with archers!

I get the feeling that the devs were afraid that our poor little brains would explode from having too many options - FOUR of starting tech choices? Two of the choices (mining/pottery) is enough of a challenge, and you want four?

Standard issue reply - if you don't like it, go and mod it ^^

 

[PieceOfMind]

As I said, I always played on the biggest available maps. And maybe I wasn't a high skilled Civ4 player. I am not going to pretend that I was.

But now I am playing Civ0.V on immortal level and doing fine. I think that is something to be really concerned about.

It doesn't matter how big the map was, unless you were putting fewer than the recommended number of AI players on the map.

 

[KopOut]

First Post.

I too find this game boring already. Here is why (based on game types I have played)

Conquest Victory

1. The AI does not understand how to use the 1upt system, so wars are extremely easy.
2. Cities (unless the Civ has tons of wonders and many defensive buildings) are extremely easy to take. If you have a couple horsemen or swordsman, you can take a city in 2-3 turns no problem.
3. Horsemen own in this game. You do not need any other unit types to defeat every single civ. The greek unit (Comp. Cavalry) is even better.
4. Once you do conquer a city you have the option of destroying the entire city (raze), destroying your civs happiness (annex), or destroying your civs budget (puppet). Those are your choices after a VICTORY.

Cultural Victory

Only very tiny civs can achieve this (less than 5 total cities) with any degree of logic. If you expand any further, there is no point in attempting as the other victory types are way easier. But, be prepared during this time to have very poor cash flow, very few units, and to research technologies that you have no need for. This victory condition involves a whole bunch of "next turn" clicking.

Finishing a game (past about 1500AD or so) on either conquest victory or culture feels like a job and is not fun at all. This makes me not want to start another game...