JudgeDeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 191
People confuse simple mechanics with simple gameplay. But, hey ho, they're on a roll, why worry about logic?
Why I do not like Civ 5....please let me explain.
- Thread starter Chan90210
- Start date
seasnake
Conquistador
I played vanilla Civ 4 and my thought then was "This game will be better than Civ III complete eventually, I like it a lot, but right now Civ III complete is still more fun."
Civ V will one day be better than Civ IV BTS but it's not there yet.
My two cents:
The AI needs fixing, it doesn't understand how to fight very effectively. It needs to be able to determine the best way to attack and then do it.
Diplomacy needs more consequences, a broken pact of cooperation or secrecy should penalize the happiness of the breaker, and your foreign advisor should be able to tell you who likes who and why, things such as "The Greeks and Iroquois have signed multiple research pacts, but Alexander is upset that Hiawatha keeps settling near his borders." This would be fun to read, help gameplay decisions and increase realism. I'm still stumping for an EU3 Causus Belli system someday in civ.
Rivers and trade posts need an update, and there needs to be a general rebalancing of improvements and tile yields. Buildings also need to be rebalanced to either cost a little less in hammers or be more worthwhile.
Great Scientist is overpowered. So are mounted units.
This is maybe the biggest and the easiest: Rework the Tech Tree. Make it so you need some prerequisites from other branches to keep researching. If I can't build a musketman I shouldn't be able to build an infantry.
Last, fix the lag time.
Other than that, so far a fine game, albeit still not as good as Civ IV BTS. But it will get there.
Civ V will one day be better than Civ IV BTS but it's not there yet.
My two cents:
The AI needs fixing, it doesn't understand how to fight very effectively. It needs to be able to determine the best way to attack and then do it.
Diplomacy needs more consequences, a broken pact of cooperation or secrecy should penalize the happiness of the breaker, and your foreign advisor should be able to tell you who likes who and why, things such as "The Greeks and Iroquois have signed multiple research pacts, but Alexander is upset that Hiawatha keeps settling near his borders." This would be fun to read, help gameplay decisions and increase realism. I'm still stumping for an EU3 Causus Belli system someday in civ.
Rivers and trade posts need an update, and there needs to be a general rebalancing of improvements and tile yields. Buildings also need to be rebalanced to either cost a little less in hammers or be more worthwhile.
Great Scientist is overpowered. So are mounted units.
This is maybe the biggest and the easiest: Rework the Tech Tree. Make it so you need some prerequisites from other branches to keep researching. If I can't build a musketman I shouldn't be able to build an infantry.
Last, fix the lag time.
Other than that, so far a fine game, albeit still not as good as Civ IV BTS. But it will get there.
Thanks for those who have read and posted on my peice. Critique is welcome. I apologise for the 'simpleton' comment, unfotunately just a little peeved at the current state of Civ V and the lack of developers respect for the fan community, again I apologise.
I do hold out hope for Civ V, its not the greatest hope but its there.
I do remember Civ IV when released was not the game it is today but Civ V seems to have started even farther back than Civ IV did on release but that does not neccessarily mean it will be farther ahead in time.
The large empires issue is more a gameplay point, it is in relation to the larger maps in particular. On a large or even a huge map empires greater than ten-fifteen cities become unwieldy. When going for continental warfare again razing a city is my preference as opposed to keeping it up and running. Plus it means the army after a quick heal can speed to the next siege. Perhaps bring back the market place bonus for offering happiness for certain goods like furs/whale/bananas? That could then be balanced by the inclusion of some form of war weariness which appears to be missing at the moment - I stand corrected if otherwise.
To be honest the better games I have had on Civ V have all taken place on the standard map size.
I do take the point that sprawling empires must have consequences but at the moment they seem completely unfeasible.
And yes I still dont understand why a coliseum or circus in one city can appease the citizens of another city even if the other city is on another continent. Unless I imagine it is the Cirque du Soleil and they travel your empire.
I also think the future as imagined in Civ V is well a little lack lustre. I know the mod community will step in there. I know its a different game but Call to Power really did the future well, that game really did go above and beyond, from the units, to the world wonders.
Just an additional point on happiness if your Civ is at war and there are front line cities clearly they should be more unhappy than cities more towards your Civ's core. yet another reason why I beleive happiness should be city specific rather than empire wide. One city will hate your guts but another will worship you why not reflect that in city specific happiness.
Lastly I know many of the issues raied are in comparison to Civ IV. I was hoping for a game that built on Civ IV, not one that detracted from it. Even Civ IV in its final guise had its flaws but in my opinion was the most polished Civ to date. Like I have stated above I hold out hope for Civ V but I have the sneaking suspicion I will be tethered to Civ IV and that will be the last Civ I truly enjoy.
One final, final point, I've never posted anything on the internet before this is my first post. I know alot do and will disagree but I wanted people to know and wanted to stop being part of the silent majority.
I do hold out hope for Civ V, its not the greatest hope but its there.
I do remember Civ IV when released was not the game it is today but Civ V seems to have started even farther back than Civ IV did on release but that does not neccessarily mean it will be farther ahead in time.
The large empires issue is more a gameplay point, it is in relation to the larger maps in particular. On a large or even a huge map empires greater than ten-fifteen cities become unwieldy. When going for continental warfare again razing a city is my preference as opposed to keeping it up and running. Plus it means the army after a quick heal can speed to the next siege. Perhaps bring back the market place bonus for offering happiness for certain goods like furs/whale/bananas? That could then be balanced by the inclusion of some form of war weariness which appears to be missing at the moment - I stand corrected if otherwise.
To be honest the better games I have had on Civ V have all taken place on the standard map size.
I do take the point that sprawling empires must have consequences but at the moment they seem completely unfeasible.
And yes I still dont understand why a coliseum or circus in one city can appease the citizens of another city even if the other city is on another continent. Unless I imagine it is the Cirque du Soleil and they travel your empire.
I also think the future as imagined in Civ V is well a little lack lustre. I know the mod community will step in there. I know its a different game but Call to Power really did the future well, that game really did go above and beyond, from the units, to the world wonders.
Just an additional point on happiness if your Civ is at war and there are front line cities clearly they should be more unhappy than cities more towards your Civ's core. yet another reason why I beleive happiness should be city specific rather than empire wide. One city will hate your guts but another will worship you why not reflect that in city specific happiness.
Lastly I know many of the issues raied are in comparison to Civ IV. I was hoping for a game that built on Civ IV, not one that detracted from it. Even Civ IV in its final guise had its flaws but in my opinion was the most polished Civ to date. Like I have stated above I hold out hope for Civ V but I have the sneaking suspicion I will be tethered to Civ IV and that will be the last Civ I truly enjoy.
One final, final point, I've never posted anything on the internet before this is my first post. I know alot do and will disagree but I wanted people to know and wanted to stop being part of the silent majority.
cf_nz
Prince
As a contrasting experience, I've had much more luck keeping larger empires happy than smaller ones. Whether that's down to the difficulty I'm playing on or the random nature of the game I don't know, but thus far I'm subscribing the the bigger is better theory.
From reading around the forum, it appears you are not alone in wanting a game based largely off Civ IV. I guess I'm one of the lucky people that is happy that Civ V is different.
From reading around the forum, it appears you are not alone in wanting a game based largely off Civ IV. I guess I'm one of the lucky people that is happy that Civ V is different.
how about you stop pretending that a few games against the AI tells you all about the game's balance and strategies
yes, civ5 is broken, but not for the reasons you list
just because the abysmal AI doesn't let you experience the different elements of civ5 doesn't mean that they don't exist
yes, civ5 is broken, but not for the reasons you list
just because the abysmal AI doesn't let you experience the different elements of civ5 doesn't mean that they don't exist
Markstar
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2001
- Messages
- 189
Oh please, really?
Besides MP being broken as well, even there the choices are not challenging at all and it comes down to a few basic choices.
With Civ5, they have clearly moved away from the idea of a complex and challenging game and toward Freecell and Minesweeper level complexity.
