Will there ever be a Civ V 'war academy'?

[cman2010]

Considering it was 10 times worse than Alpha Centauri, which was released before it, you may wish to amend that statement.

I dont whish to amend my statement civ 3 was 10 times the game civ 5 is, if you cant see that its just because you like simple games.

 

[esemjay]

Civ3 being 10 times better, for it's time, than Civ5 doesn't hold much meaning once it's been 10 years since Civ3 was released.

 

[cman2010]

Civ3 being 10 times better, for it's time, than Civ5 doesn't hold much meaning once it's been 10 years since Civ3 was released.

It still holds meaning the point was brought up that civ 3 got a war academy(in which the poster claimed it was "miles behind civ 5") so I brought up that it was 10 times better on release that civ 5 was on release the fact that you are having trouble following the conversation just proves your the typical civ 5 fan.
Moderator Action: Don't insult other people.

 

[esemjay]

It still holds meaning the point was brought up that civ 3 got a war academy(in which the poster claimed it was "miles behind civ 5") so I brought up that it was 10 times better on release that civ 5 was on release the fact that you are having trouble following the conversation just proves your the typical civ 5 fan.

Is that because I'm a minimalist? Or are you calling me simple? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still the only person to successfully reverse engineer animations collections (*.kfm) in Civ4, or to build a tool to remap those animations onto other units.

Also, throwing around random numbers and calling them statistics isn't "proof" by any means; and you attacking me because I don't accept your opinion as a statement of fact is both childish and unnecessary.
Moderator Action: Please don't troll other people.

 

[Bandobras Took]

I dont whish to amend my statement civ 3 was 10 times the game civ 5 is, if you cant see that its just because you like simple games.

Here we go. You claim that Civ 3 was a great game for its time. My response is that Alpha Centauri was published earlier and was ten times better. Both bear the Sid Meier name, both have the same basic idea -- build settlers to found cities. For its time, Civ 3 was a lousy, rushed, piece of crap that built on none of the good ideas found in Alpha Centauri. It is not 10 times better than Civ 5 for its time, but it's useful to examine the two in parallel because both were preceded by great games.

Let's look at the gameplay Civ 3 brought to the table.

Rex Like Mad

Establish a settler factory and churn out the cities. Cram a city in every available space. No, really. There are articles on establishing Settler factories so you can churn out the greatest amount of settlers in the least amount of time.

Kill

Want to rush Wonders? You have to fight several wars in order to generate a great leader to rush that Wonder.

Want to build buildings? Sorry, corruption's going to nail every city past the first few, but you have to found those cities anyway because that's what the AI is doing.

Never mind that the game actually punishes you for building most of those buildings in the form of building maintenance.

Want a space victory? Sorry, all the aluminum's on the other continent. You CAN'T build a spaceship.

Want to cultivate good relations with your neighbors? Forget it. Diplomacy is completely hidden. AIs will traipse across your borders all day and declare on you for complaining. AIs will declare on you if you send a simple boat through their sea waters in return. However, you can ROP rape whoever you want, and in the end, it's more profitable to do that than to have a neighbor.

Civ 3's gameplay was simplistic to the point of stupidity, up to and including "toss a coin" battles. Compare it with Alpha Centauri, which, as I mentioned, came earlier, and it's dumbed down with a vengeance.

And yet it got its War Academy. Civ 5 deserves one, as well.

 

[cman2010]

Here we go. You claim that Civ 3 was a great game for its time. My response is that Alpha Centauri was published earlier and was ten times better. Both bear the Sid Meier name, both have the same basic idea -- build settlers to found cities. For its time, Civ 3 was a lousy, rushed, piece of crap that built on none of the good ideas found in Alpha Centauri. It is not 10 times better than Civ 5 for its time, but it's useful to examine the two in parallel because both were preceded by great games.

Let's look at the gameplay Civ 3 brought to the table.

Rex Like Mad

Establish a settler factory and churn out the cities. Cram a city in every available space. No, really. There are articles on establishing Settler factories so you can churn out the greatest amount of settlers in the least amount of time.

Kill

Want to rush Wonders? You have to fight several wars in order to generate a great leader to rush that Wonder.

Want to build buildings? Sorry, corruption's going to nail every city past the first few, but you have to found those cities anyway because that's what the AI is doing.

Never mind that the game actually punishes you for building most of those buildings in the form of building maintenance.

Want a space victory? Sorry, all the aluminum's on the other continent. You CAN'T build a spaceship.

Want to cultivate good relations with your neighbors? Forget it. Diplomacy is completely hidden. AIs will traipse across your borders all day and declare on you for complaining. AIs will declare on you if you send a simple boat through their sea waters in return. However, you can ROP rape whoever you want, and in the end, it's more profitable to do that than to have a neighbor.

Civ 3's gameplay was simplistic to the point of stupidity, up to and including "toss a coin" battles. Compare it with Alpha Centauri, which, as I mentioned, came earlier, and it's dumbed down with a vengeance.

And yet it got its War Academy. Civ 5 deserves one, as well.

you just keep beating a dead hourse just because you dont like civ 3 does not many many people did. Again for its time civ 3 was 10 times better on release than civ 5

 

[cman2010]

also civ 3 was very easy to mod I moded it all the time and im not a moder by any means.

 

[esemjay]

I really wasn't a fan of Civ3, either.

I bought it at release price, installed it, and (literally) lost Disc 1. I didn't care. I went back to playing Civ2. Then when Civ4 came out, I bought it- kind of didn't like it. I tried Civ3 again, and went back to Civ4.

 

[Drawmeus]

I heavily played Civ 2 in its time. Then I heavily played Civ 3 in its time and considered it an improvement. Then I heavily played Civ 4 in its time and considered it an improvement again.

I'm ambivalent about calling Civ 5 an improvement over Civ 4... but since I can't go back to Civ 4 (I find that the tile grid, the city maintenance and the stacks of doom aren't features I'm willing to put up with after playing a game that lacks them), I may have to concede it as an improvement. I'd rather play Civ 5 than Civ 4 right now.

 

[esemjay]

...
I find that the tile grid, the city maintenance and the stacks of doom aren't features I'm willing to put up with after playing a game that lacks them
...

This. Civ5 improved some things, and broke a lot of others... but what I like outweighs what I don't.

 

[Bandobras Took]

you just keep beating a dead hourse just because you dont like civ 3 does not many many people did. Again for its time civ 3 was 10 times better on release than civ 5

Between the two of us, I'm the one backing up my statements with examples. I'll put it another way: is there any complaint about Civ 5 that is not equally valid for Civ 3?

 

[Dermo]

Let me know when there is an Academy up and running.
I'd like to sign the AI up for some courses

 

[joyous_gard]

Let me know when there is an Academy up and running.
I'd like to sign the AI up for some courses

This guy wins.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Let me know when there is an Academy up and running.
I'd like to sign the AI up for some courses

Amen!

 

[cman2010]

Between the two of us, I'm the one backing up my statements with examples. I'll put it another way: is there any complaint about Civ 5 that is not equally valid for Civ 3?

plenty, and you have not backed up your claim with any facts only your opinions which are incorrect.

 

[esemjay]

plenty, and you have not backed up your claim with any facts only your opinions which are incorrect.

That statement is self-contradictory. To argue that someone backed a claim with opinion, and then call the opinion incorrect, is a counterproductive argument in itself... I also would like to quote the proof that you have provided, and would like you to point out the "facts" in it.

I dont even think you played civ 3 when it came out the game was ten times better than civ 5 for its time.

It still holds meaning the point was brought up that civ 3 got a war academy(in which the poster claimed it was "miles behind civ 5") so I brought up that it was 10 times better on release that civ 5 was on release

you just keep beating a dead hourse just because you dont like civ 3 does not many many people did. Again for its time civ 3 was 10 times better on release than civ 5

Remember:

Civ3 being 10 times better, for it's time, than Civ5 doesn't hold much meaning once it's been 10 years since Civ3 was released.

throwing around random numbers and calling them statistics isn't "proof" by any means

 

[Chode]

Nonsense. Civ 3 got a War Academy, and it's miles behind Civ 4 or Civ 5.

Civ 3 is light years ahead of Civ 5. Civ 4 is megaparsecs ahead of Civ 5.

 

[JohnnyW]

Let's look at the gameplay Civ 3 brought to the table.

Rex Like Mad

Establish a settler factory and churn out the cities. Cram a city in every available space. No, really. There are articles on establishing Settler factories so you can churn out the greatest amount of settlers in the least amount of time.

Kill

Want to rush Wonders? You have to fight several wars in order to generate a great leader to rush that Wonder.

Want to build buildings? Sorry, corruption's going to nail every city past the first few, but you have to found those cities anyway because that's what the AI is doing.

Never mind that the game actually punishes you for building most of those buildings in the form of building maintenance.

Want a space victory? Sorry, all the aluminum's on the other continent. You CAN'T build a spaceship.

Want to cultivate good relations with your neighbors? Forget it. Diplomacy is completely hidden. AIs will traipse across your borders all day and declare on you for complaining. AIs will declare on you if you send a simple boat through their sea waters in return. However, you can ROP rape whoever you want, and in the end, it's more profitable to do that than to have a neighbor.

Civ 3's gameplay was simplistic to the point of stupidity, up to and including "toss a coin" battles. Compare it with Alpha Centauri, which, as I mentioned, came earlier, and it's dumbed down with a vengeance.

Oh man, I thought you were comparing civ5 to civ4 that whole post.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Oh man, I thought you were comparing civ5 to civ4 that whole post.

Which is why I made it. Civ 3 was as far behind Alpha Centauri as Civ 5 behind Civ 4, if not farther.

And I'm still waiting for the examples of Civ 3 being so great as compared to Civ 5. I've already pointed out several basic design problems of Civ 3, many of which are shared by Civ 5 -- except Civ 5 did away the horrendous corruption/waste model.

 

[esemjay]

Which is why I made it. Civ 3 was as far behind Alpha Centauri as Civ 5 behind Civ 4, if not farther.

And I'm still waiting for the examples of Civ 3 being so great as compared to Civ 5. I've already pointed out several basic design problems of Civ 3, many of which are shared by Civ 5 -- except Civ 5 did away the horrendous corruption/waste model.

Critic Reviews
Sid Meier's Civilization III Reviews Average (88.6% out of 100%)Link
Sid Meier's Civilization V Reviews Average (90.3% out of 100%) Link

Clearly, 88.6% is less than 90.3%.

I don't have time to go through the player reviews. However, I want to point out that reviews such as:

[5.0 out of 10]
Civ 5 is an obviously rushed game. A dumbed down product intended to appeal to a wider audience.

- Hakkarin​

Link

Spoiler :

I did not bash this game as hard as many others did fallowing its release almost 6 months ago (or has it been six months? I don't remember honestly).

However, after having invested roughly 48-49 hours into the game (if STEAM is to be believed that is) I am now saddened by the fact that I just can't try to tell myself that the game isn't bad anymore.

I gave it its chance to change my mind by waiting for the first few patches and I, like I mentioned above invested almost 50 hours into the game. That's more then most people invest into 2-3 games put together.

The game appears to get bashed mostly for being a dumbed down version of Civ 4, but the problems with the game are actually much more complex then that.

The fact that a lot of the stuff from Civ 4 is missing is disappointing, but the game would still be at least fairly enjoyable if it did what it is trying to do right and had decent AI.

But it doesn't.

The Nr.1 problem with the game is that the AI just doesn't know how to play its own game. Never at any point while I was playing the game was the AI able prove itself dangerous to me.

Ever.

Considering that the Civ formula has been largely gutted in this game to make war the meat of the game (more on that soon) its pretty staggering that the AI is just barely able to wage war.

Just a few hours ago I was playing game, and decided to make an experiment by saving the game and then declare war on Persia (which according to the game was much stronger then me) and then simply sit back and do nothing to see if the Persians would be able to take so much as a single city from me.

They did not. Instead they just gathered an army and then had it move back and forth near my borders while only attacking the occasional undefended artillery unit and inflicting no real damage at all. All of this, even thought I was literally just letting them do as they pleased on purpose and for some reason they also did not appear to own/use any nuclear weapons even though they had access to Uranium and had the techs needed.

After some time, I decided to just use my own nukes and wiped out something like 50-60% of the entire Persian army in a single turn......

The fact that the AI is this terrible is mostly the reason for why this game just falls apart. Even if you are willing to accept that the game isn't as complex as Civ 4 the horrible AI still prevents you from having fun because there is no challenge.

The AI is also fairly bad when it comes to diplomacy, and while this was somewhat addressed in a patch the diplomacy is still inferior to that of Civ 4's.

Then there is also the fact that the game appears to focus mostly on just war. I remember reading an interview where one of the developers more or less just admitted that they had dumbed down the game to appeal to more people, so that's not really debatable anymore. Not that you would need to read the interview to figure it out since almost everything about the game literally screams "dumbed down!".

But hey! At least it looks nice, right?

No.

While the game does look somewhat better in some ways on a high end machine (realistic oceans for example) the game doesn't actually look very good at all on low and mid end machines. In addition, Civ 4's visuals actually have some things that Civ 5 doesn't, like animated trees for example.

Many if not most official critics have given this game good scores, but that is mostly because it doesn't become fully obvious just how broken the game is unless you actually spend enough time with it. I have the feeling that most of the critics just played a few games and then based their whole reviews on that alone.

Closing comments:

Assuming that the AI will somehow become good in the future (it won't, not without an expansion pack and even then I am not so sure), basically what you will have is a shallow war game with some Civ elements tacked on to it. That combined with the fact that the graphics are only marginally better then those of Civ 4's in spite of the system requirements being WAY higher means that this is one Civ game (or just strategy game in general) that you will want to avoid.

-Hakkarin, also known as Hardcore_Gamer on many forums.

Should factor more, as they have substantial criticism, than these types:

[3.5 out of 10]
The decline of civilization.

- piracyftw​

Link

Spoiler :

This is the end of the civilization series folks! Graphics is unbelievably poor, Music is worse, Game play is bad , Key ingredients from the previous Civilization 4 game has been removed. Very little strategy is left in the game now , Technology tree has been raped and destroyed and modified . This is the worst civilization game or even the worst strategy game i have EVER played. The HUD has also been messed up big time.

There is nothing new in the game, The only thing new is that many great features such as religion, spying , strategy from the previous civilization game has been completely removed.DO NOT PLAY THIS GAME. I spent exactly 1 hour playing this game,And did not want to waste any more time on this cr**y excuse for a strategy game.

Hopefully expansion packs will restore the glory of the Civilization 4 game.