Will Civ V's flaws ever be fixed?

[dexters]

I actually kinda agree with this, the "reboot" concept. Personally, I'm not so much outraged by the slim feature set. It's the abysmal AI (that they had so much hyped), and the profound balance issues (as exposed by Sullla). If these two things were fixed I'd be fairly content.

Although I do worry, they say they've stripped down Civ to make it more accessible, but won't they face the complexity "problem" once again once they've added stuff in expacks and future Civs? Are they just going to strip Civ to barebones every few iterations to accommodate the newbies? Sounds like a hinderance to real progress.

By newbies you mean people already predisposed to playing it but felt too intimidating. It's not your call of duty gamer being enticed to play it.

Actually, that's how I got started with Civ. I always liked to play games like it, but would never have tried it had it not for civ2, which even at the time *compared to Moo* was relatively more basic.

Clearly, building ontop of the complexities of BTS was untenable, nor is simply remaking BTS with DX11 graphics. We'll have similar types of sentiment here with different text if that were the case. The idea is of course to add new concepts, steamline, so you can build it up again to a new kind of complexity.

I don't think the reinventing the franchise idea with new concepts is particularly controversial. It actually enjoys strong support based on straw polls the the CFC staff conducted.

 

[moscaverde]

No, the bugs and AI will be. But other flaws don't.
I agree on the disliking of this new AI mentality (to win) and other core concepts (the economy system is lost and I hate this boargamish one).
This is the thing of CIV, everyone play and like it in different ways, so what some think are flaws other think are great game concepts.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I put fixed by Firaxis, because they will take the stuff the modding community does that they like, tweak it, merge it together, and add their own stuff to fix the game... (so modding community will fix it first, then Firaxis will make some of that official)

 

[ChaplainDMK]

Its gonna get fixed, probably. I think it sold well, so i see no reason why Firaxis would abandon it.

 

[Vordeo]

It's going to get fixed via patches. It's unfinished now, but nowhere as bad as the doomsayers on this board would have you believe.

Now, it's different from CivIV in several ways, but that doesn't make it broken. The developers went for a different experience, and while at the moment it isn't really finished, I have every confidence that eventually the game will be patched til it's very good.

 

[Mathochism]

Steam requirement.
Lack of features.
Changing feature(s) from micromanagment to macromanagment.
AI playstyle. Aka "plays to win".

Granted some of those could be partially addressed by modders. Most notably #2 and #4. But as a whole I see these as core flaws that cannot(actually will not but its the same thing at this point) be fixed in a meaningful way.

I wouldn't consider 1 or 2 to be core flaws. Core flaws are mechanical issues that can't be fixed without completely revamping the game. The Steam requirement doesn't affect game mechanics and the lack of features isn't a problem with a mechanic, but instead a lack of mechanics.

3 and 4, of course, could be core issues depending on your person views. Personally, I think the increased emphasis on macro-management and the AI focus on winning instead of roleplaying to be improvements, and not core issues. Of course, that's MY personal opinion.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

There's nothing wrong with Civ 5 that a complete redesign wouldn't fix.

 

[Andoo]

Civ 5 feels like plain yogurt for me. It's simple and good on its own but not enough. With more flavours added on, it can only get better imo. Fundamental flaws? I believe it's even possible to create Civ 4 with hexagon out of Civ 5.

 

[cccv]

There needs to be an option for "some yes, some no."

The forever peace thing will be fixed. The AI thinking you're near their boarders when you're not even on the same continent will probably be fixed. The needless auto-exploring through a city-state's territory will hopefully be fixed. All by Firaxis. And the AI may never be perfect, but I'm sure it will be improved in some ways.

The stupid tile yields (you're better off farming over cattle than building a pasture) may or may not be fixed by Firaxis. It's stupid, but maybe they can't think of a better way to balance it while still achieving the pace they want for the game. But it will definitely be fixed by modding if it hasn't been already.

The insane AI who will always hate you no matter what you do, even (or especially) when you help them? I don't know. Honestly I think that may be a necessary problem of how Schafer wants him game. Another case of "screw it, this is the best we can do, deal with it." Only unlike the above example, I have no idea how moddable that problem is.

Basically, the flaws that are there by accident (bugs) will be fixed, and there will be improvement in some of the things they were going for but didn't quite achieve (eg, an AI who can fight effectively). the flaws that are a necessary evil of the "War is always best, and every leader is exactly the same-- as close to a human on multiplayer as we can program" game that Schafer wanted will probably not be fixed by Firaxis. Maybe or maybe not by mods.

 

[zonk]

One thing that I kicked around last night that dims hope --

I'm starting to wonder if the issue of scaling really occurred to anyone at Firaxis after all the Panzer General talk.

I dusted off my old copy of Pacific General (an SSI Panzer clone set in the PTO) - it hit me like a thunderbolt. PG's hex/1upt worked so well because the scale was just perfect.

The gameboard was a single battlefield -- just an island (and not even a whole island) in most scenarios with a scaled amount of ocean.

The scale of the PG implementation in Civ really suffers --- Civ maps would have to be about 1000 times bigger or more to mimic the scale.

Once you decide you want to go tactical -- I think you're going to come to loggerheads with the fact that Civ is a strategic map. It's really hard for me to see how that can be overcome.

 

[kingsfan]

I voted, I have absolutely no idea. What is strange to me is the fact that this game was released unfinished. The playtesters did a horrible job. The multiplayer is unplayable. The game takes WAY too long for next turn. I have a pretty good system too. It takes about 3 minutes to load my saved games? I just find it hard to believe that a game like Crysis can fly on my computer at high specs and Civ 5 is struggling and struggling.... The AI is just weird? One minute a civ is getting crushed, I step in and help them by going to war with the civ their at war with and take back 3 of their cities... give them back to them... they are still at war... and they call me a bloodthirsty jerk and cut off all relations with me??? WTF? This isn't AI trying to win the game. This is AI on crack? The next game I play is so utterly boring that I can just press the next turn button over and over... What happened to the lip biting complexities of civ 4? What happened to my brain being so overwhelmed that I HAD to turn the game off for a while and really think? I just have to assume Civ 5 was made for a new crowd. I just can't believe that a hardcore Civ 4 fan would love this game.

In closing, how do you fix that? With patches? Expansions? Will I have to pay more money to get the complexities that came with vanilla Civ 4? IDK

 

[SuperJay]

Civ 5 feels like plain yogurt for me.

Hahaha, that's awesome. Well said.

(If only I could dip my Lebanese stuffed grape leaves into it. Mmm.)

 

[Grape Flavor]

The scale of the PG implementation in Civ really suffers --- Civ maps would have to be about 1000 times bigger or more to mimic the scale.

Once you decide you want to go tactical -- I think you're going to come to loggerheads with the fact that Civ is a strategic map. It's really hard for me to see how that can be overcome.

I've been concerned about that since the very beginning. The scale IS all messed up, but if it works gameplay wise I can stomach the weird scaling.

The one thing a lot of people do seem to be agreeing on though, despite all the huge problems, is that the 1upt "tactical" combat makes combat more interesting. (Of course, everyone bemoans the AI isn't actually any GOOD at it, but that's not really a "mechanic" problem.)

Do you have the game yet? I'm curious as to how the new combat feels. It's certainly unrealistic and weirdly scaled, but honestly building a huge SOD wasn't all that interesting, and if the new system gives the game more depth it's hardly a bad thing.

 

[Grape Flavor]

I voted, I have absolutely no idea. What is strange to me is the fact that this game was released unfinished. The playtesters did a horrible job. The multiplayer is unplayable. The game takes WAY too long for next turn. I have a pretty good system too. It takes about 3 minutes to load my saved games? I just find it hard to believe that a game like Crysis can fly on my computer at high specs and Civ 5 is struggling and struggling.... The AI is just weird? One minute a civ is getting crushed, I step in and help them by going to war with the civ their at war with and take back 3 of their cities... give them back to them... they are still at war... and they call me a bloodthirsty jerk and cut off all relations with me??? WTF? This isn't AI trying to win the game. This is AI on crack? The next game I play is so utterly boring that I can just press the next turn button over and over... What happened to the lip biting complexities of civ 4? What happened to my brain being so overwhelmed that I HAD to turn the game off for a while and really think? I just have to assume Civ 5 was made for a new crowd. I just can't believe that a hardcore Civ 4 fan would love this game.

In closing, how do you fix that? With patches? Expansions? Will I have to pay more money to get the complexities that came with vanilla Civ 4? IDK

It's certainly extremely troubling and I made the poll to gauge people's optimism as to whether the game will eventually overcome all these serious issues.

I voted the same as you - who knows?

 

[whstaff]

all this complaining is reminiscent of the launch of Civ 3 and a lesser extent Civ 4.

When it first hit the market Civ 3 was about as buggy as it gets--but over the next 12 mos--it got fixed. From what I saw Civ 4 was less buggy--but pretty dull out of the box. I didn't buy until BTS came out.

Civ 5 will slowly get better--count on it.

 

[r_rolo1]

I actually kinda agree with this, the "reboot" concept. Personally, I'm not so much outraged by the slim feature set. It's the abysmal AI (that they had so much hyped), and the profound balance issues (as exposed by Sullla). If these two things were fixed I'd be fairly content.

The issue is that ICS ( the most glaring of the issues that Sullla pointed out ) as the best option in almost all times is not fixable inside the current core rule frame of civ V. Adding global happiness and empire pop limiter ( a good idea by it self, but firaxis should had known better about global variables being core features after the mess cultural win was in civ III ... right , mr civ V lead designer once a civ III modder ? ; ) to relatively low food output of tiles even when improved , happiness buildings costing cash and not being suficiently better by interaction and the fact that each city now works far more tiles than in previous civ games when fully staffed ( neither of those ideas are bad in itself ) all concur to make large cities a bad idea while not making a dent on carpet settling the terrain .... and changing any of them would make the game quite diferent.

So my honest vote would be "No, civ V will never be fixed and still be civ V. If you are willing to have a civ 5.5 ... maybe " . As you don't have that option, I think that the mods will change it, since they have more latitute for this kind of work and to mess core mechanics out.

 

[Vellis]

Of course it will, look at all the improvements made to Civ IV between release and now. Whether it will ever be as good as Civ IV remains to be seen, but it will certainly become a great game in its own right.

 

[kingsfan]

all this complaining is reminiscent of the launch of Civ 3 and a lesser extent Civ 4.

When it first hit the market Civ 3 was about as buggy as it gets--but over the next 12 mos--it got fixed. From what I saw Civ 4 was less buggy--but pretty dull out of the box. I didn't buy until BTS came out.

Civ 5 will slowly get better--count on it.

Ok. I get it. This forum has had it's share of complaints but, what you are saying is don't buy a Civ game after release because they hit the market dull and unfinished? This is normal for Civ fans? Imagine for a second any other marquis game being released dull and unfinished. It's fans would rip it to shreds, rightfully so.

Sorry for my un-optimistic point of view. Maybe after 12 months after paying for the game I will get a good game? My bad. I should have known not to but a Civ game when it is released.

 

[Becephalus]

I think the combat AI needs a lot of work, and there is some rebalancing to do. The core mechanics are fine. I don't mind the lack of content because I thought Civ4 was ridiculously bloated in this regard, but I am sure a lot of content will be added back in. Thats how you make money these days.

 

[zonk]

I've been concerned about that since the very beginning. The scale IS all messed up, but if it works gameplay wise I can stomach the weird scaling.

The one thing a lot of people do seem to be agreeing on though, despite all the huge problems, is that the 1upt "tactical" combat makes combat more interesting. (Of course, everyone bemoans the AI isn't actually any GOOD at it, but that's not really a "mechanic" problem.)

Do you have the game yet? I'm curious as to how the new combat feels. It's certainly unrealistic and weirdly scaled, but honestly building a huge SOD wasn't all that interesting, and if the new system gives the game more depth it's hardly a bad thing.

I do (have the game).... I'm getting senile, because I actually played a lot of the old SSI titles (Panzer General, Pacific General, etc) and liked them -- and the whole scale problem just dawned on me.

Since that didn't occur to me, I, too was just looking forward to hex/1UpT --- and initially, I WAS in the "It's a success - just fix the AI" camp... but - as I've played more, the scale problems really do become apparent.

Both map scale AND timeframe scale.... you could buy bigger and better units in the SSI series, or add more fuel or ammo -- but -- you were ultimately working off of the same very closely defined timeline of units.

Let's say they fix the AI --

I still see two problems that I'm not sure you can overcome -

1) The size scale issue -- you're still trying to play tactical war (with individual units engaging other individual units) on the very same map that you're trying to model strategic things like cities and tile usage... I WANT to like hex -- but more and more, I really do think they need to allow armies (limit them, to be sure) and then pop a tactical map for deployments and battle

2) The time scale issue -- especially given the map size issue above means that you run into serious problems when trying to model the fact that you can ancient ranged units (archers) together with modern (say... rocket artillery). The smaller-than-panzer general map means you don't have a lot of options for extending range (well, unless you want to make Civ not just a wargame, but an artillery wargame!).

I can see brute force ways to deal with 2) -- the most obvious, you have to really start exponentially by era expanding hitpoints... 12 vs. 24 isn't going to cut it - you pretty much have to make it a done deal that modern units kill older units always and definitely with a single barrage.... but I'm not sure I see a good way to deal with 1) (assuming, a tactical map pop-out for battles is out of the question).