Worth it, after recent patch?

[Stankardi]

I loved Civ IV except for the stacks of doom and how tedious the micro got late in the game. Civ V has been on my radar for a long time but I've always heard some not-so-pleasant things about it. Specifically:

• The AI is underwhelming and incompetent (big, big issue for me)
• Performance leaves a lot to be desired
• Stability is quite unpredictable
• Bugs, bugs, bugs

I'm curious if the game is now worth it? I figured asking veterans of the game would give me the best possible answer

Also, getting some feedback on the value of the DLC would be fantastic too, since there does seem to be a lot of it.

 

[King Patrick]

I started playing in March, so I can't speak to how things were before that, but I've never had a crash or noticeably slow turn processing. I had one display bug (a few purple tiles in one game) that cleared up on reloading the save.

I never had a big problem with the AI, and the last two patches have only improved it. The keys seem to be recognizing that the AIs are programmed to act like human players who also want to win rather than strict historical simulations, and taking time to figure out the reasons behind the AI's actions rather than simply throwing up your hands and crying "broken!" However, the AI's still not as clever or intuitive as a human opponent. The AI's gotten better at military tactics with each patch - protecting siege units, using terrain - but to be honest, it's still not too difficult to outsmart, esp. on defense, assuming you aren't completely outmatched in units or tech.

The DLC's are pretty cool, both to play and as opponents. The Polynesians and Inca have a very different vibe from the other civs, and produce distinct-looking empires with the Polynesian moais (Easter Island statues) and Incan terrace farms. The other civs are fun additions to the game, too - the Mongols are the crazy warmongers you'd expect, Spain is expansion-happy, Babylon is obsessed with science, etc. I think all the DLCs come with their own scenarios featuring that civ, but I haven't tried most of them. I also haven't tried most of the maps in the map pack, but I do like the pangaea plus and continents plus map seeds, which move most of the city-states off the major landmasses onto island-chains.

Hope that helps!

 

[markusbeutel]

I loved Civ IV except for the stacks of doom and how tedious the micro got late in the game. Civ V has been on my radar for a long time but I've always heard some not-so-pleasant things about it. Specifically:

• The AI is underwhelming and incompetent (big, big issue for me)
• Performance leaves a lot to be desired
• Stability is quite unpredictable
• Bugs, bugs, bugs

I'm curious if the game is now worth it? I figured asking veterans of the game would give me the best possible answer

Also, getting some feedback on the value of the DLC would be fantastic too, since there does seem to be a lot of it.

1) The AI is still underwhelming, although not nearly as bad as it was when first released. The AI will now attempt early rushes, (unfortunately, usually with a pack of Warriors), so that's something to watch out for. Naval AI is still fairly non-existent as well. Overall, the AI is probably in better shape than it was in CIV IV, but in CIV IV the stacks made up for AI shortcomings - specifically by your best defender automatically matching up against counter unit - not to mention the sheer number of troops in the stacks themselves. If some sort of limited stacking mechanic were introduced that featured units matching up against their counter units, (with maybe a hint of some sort of formation system for player customization), CIV V military AI would be in a much better place.

They actually played around with a limited stacking system early in the design process of Beyond the Sword but never implemented it - so at the very least, I could see something like this on the horizon. Probably not in CIV V or any expansions, but in CIV VI...

2) Performance reports after the latest patch have been muddled at best. Some claim performance has improved, other's claim it's become inferior. Personally, it doesn't seem to have changed on my PC, (Quad 2.66/4 gigs ram/8800GTX). Standard maps are playable, with later era turns taking around 15-30 seconds on average, and early era turns taking 3-5 seconds. Still a lot to be desired on this front, (especially on larger maps and multi-player).

3) The game crashes far less then it used to, (on my computer), although ModBuddy crashes all the time. It's a PC game, so complete stability is borderline impossible.

4) I wouldn't say the game has that many bugs at this point, especially if you aren't one to micromanage. If you do, though, there are still issues such as tile yields displaying incorrect yields, and weird blotches of red that seem to appear randomly on the map, (on my setup at least). The game does have various exploits which still remain, although if you haven't discovered of them yet, you're probably better off not being told about them.

What I've found so far is that if you play CIV IV on Prince/King or lower, you'll probably enjoy CIV V - but if you play Monarch+ on CIV IV and you've grown accustomed to the micro that these higher difficulties offer, CIV V may be a turn off. (But this is purely my subjective opinion based on conversations with other CIV players so don't take it to heart). Also, if you enjoy the militaristic side of the game, then you'll probably enjoy CIV V regardless of what difficulty levels you're accustomed to playing as CIV V focuses heavily on this side of the game.

That being said, if you're more of a builder, you may find yourself disappointed with the amount of features removed from IV - but, this aspect of the game is what the developer's have spent the majority of work on in patches.

 

[ButSam]

Actually, for me as a builder I have a somewhat different perspective...I was a builder but mostly because wars were way too tedious in Civ IV (and earlier). Now that wars are much better (IMHO, since they take less micromanagement and have more strategy in unit placement, but yet go faster too) I am quite happy with Civ V. It's not perfect -- my biggest complaint is the lack of any espionage system at all (which is an odd choice particularly since gold is much more prevalent in Civ V than earlier civs) -- but the patches have made the game significantly better IMHO. I really enjoy hexes (uniform movement distance), 1UPT (my favorite new mechanic), Policies (particularly now with finishers), and the new Diplomatic/Economic victory condition -- it's not just a substitute for domination, it really does take a different strategy. I also find myself occasionally wanting to declare war on someone and take them over, even mid-to-late game, which rarely happened in Civ IV -- sometimes I would in Civ IV but it seemed like a chore...now sometimes even my builder self wants to declare war and have fun strategizing over how to take over their land

 

[BenAxiom]

These are really fair assessments. I'd also add that if you take a cursory look at virtually any post in virtually any strategy thread on this forum, you'll see that waging war is the primary point of interest in this game. If you like to conquer via warfare, you'll probably be a fan of this game. If not, you'll likely enjoy the game as a casual player.

 

[jdog5000]

Civ5 is now really fun, I enjoy it immensely. It has improved by huge leaps over release, and the sense I have is that this was the last major balancing patch.

The AI is far from incompetent, it gives a good challenge. There are occasional moments where it does something stupid in tactical combat, but in the bigger scheme it develops its empire quite well. You will find if you're coming from IV that the late game can be much more exciting now as the AI can push for victory (where as it was rarely really a threat to win in IV in my experience).

I have had no problems with stability in a while, and performance is good on my laptop.

Everyone expects an expansion eventually, but there's been no news of that at all so it may be a long way off.

 

[Haig]

Never had any crashes or graph problems myself.

I love also Civs IV and III ...
But at the moment V is king for me. (with III in rotatio too!)

There's so much good stuff in it now, and the latest patch is super.

Sometimes the AI does stupid things, sometimes great stuff like:
Frigates escort embarked units properly.
Attacking with melee/rifle/cav units with siege/artillery following behind, and retreating if siege is unguarded.
Concentrating firepower.

As I play the AI is not a problem for me.

Espionage and random events are the ones I need now.

 

[Stankardi]

Hey guys, thanks for all of the extremely helpful replies. It looks like Firaxis is doing a good job supporting the game well past it's release.

I'm much more of a conqueror than I am anything else when it comes to Civ games (or strategy games in general). I love in-depth diplomacy however and the idea of waging war through words, deception and coin. Does the game offer the players (including the AI) the opportunity to engage in proxy warfare?

I'm hoping that if there is a summer Steam sale, that Civ V will get some attention

 

[Trickster7135]

Diplomacy and conquest are much more interesting than in Civ4. Every civ wants to win at any cost now, and they will almost never just sit by and let you win. The AI does defensive wars pretty good as well (taking down a walled city with a siege unit is ridiculously hard, especially if they keep throwing mounted units at you). Offensively its kinda meh, but the game overall favors defensive wars in general.

 

[markusbeutel]

Diplomacy and conquest are much more interesting than in Civ4. Every civ wants to win at any cost now, and they will almost never just sit by and let you win.

I would have to disagree with this statement. Each CIV has a VictoryCompetitiveness rating out of 10, and the highest rating any one particular Civ has is 8, (Oda and Alexander to be specific). Most other Civ's do not place a large emphasis on going for any sort of Victory type. Only a handful of Civ's will seriously try and impede you if you are getting close to a win.

Diplomacy is also a different beast altogether when compared to CIV IV. While CIV IV had plenty of positive modifiers, CIV V has few - although some have been added with the latest patch. What this means is that it's very difficult to maintain positive relationships with other Civ's and you're much better off avoiding them altogether as there are over 25+ negative modifiers you can unknowingly perform that will impede relations.

That being said, it is possible to game this system by keeping track of Declarations of Friendships and Denouncements much in the same way Religion was used to manipulate Diplomatic Blocs in CIV IV. Many people currently avoid doing this, though, because there is no global graphical Diplomacy screen showing these statistics and it can get tedious to keep track of.

The developers stated they wanted Diplomacy to not be as mechanical as in CIV IV, and in turn they chose to leave out Religion and diplomatic modifier numbers/hints from the game. They also chose to leave out positive modifiers that fans had grown accustomed to, like (+) for open borders and gifts of tribute.

They've since backtracked on many of these stances, with diplomatic hints, and some positive modifiers being implemented back into the game - not to mention the outright removal of the undocumented Pacts of Secrecy and Pacts of Cooperation. IMHO, Diplomacy was one of the weakest parts of the game when it was first released, but the fact that Firaxis has put a significant amount of effort into completely revamping some of it's core gameplay mechanics, shows me that, at the very least, they are committed to providing a lasting CIV experience.

I'll end with two words: InfoAddict. Download it. It adds all of the behind the scenes Diplomacy info that is seemingly absent, or hidden behind various sub-menus in CIV V's current iteration.

 

[Montov]

I'm much more of a conqueror than I am anything else when it comes to Civ games (or strategy games in general). I love in-depth diplomacy however and the idea of waging war through words, deception and coin. Does the game offer the players (including the AI) the opportunity to engage in proxy warfare?

Warfare is far better in civ5 then civ4. With 1 unit per tile there is a whole tactical layer added, because of the placement of troops.

There is proxy battles with City States, which you can bribe to be your ally and gift units to fight for you. They sometimes take over enemy cities and give you some cover, but the AI is not that good at warfare as yourself, so don't expect a lot from it.

 

[Zeknichov]

I loved Civ IV except for the stacks of doom and how tedious the micro got late in the game. Civ V has been on my radar for a long time but I've always heard some not-so-pleasant things about it. Specifically:

• The AI is underwhelming and incompetent (big, big issue for me)
• Performance leaves a lot to be desired
• Stability is quite unpredictable
• Bugs, bugs, bugs

I'm curious if the game is now worth it? I figured asking veterans of the game would give me the best possible answer

Also, getting some feedback on the value of the DLC would be fantastic too, since there does seem to be a lot of it.

1. The AI isn't as good as a player. Prior to this patch I would have said the game was easy but deity is a lot harder this patch thanks to the fixes to RAs and Steel. The game will definitely be a challenge. The old strategies which people who criticize CIV5 over being too easy are no longer viable.

2. This is still true but believe it or not performance got a little better in the new patch. There's plenty of reports so I doubt it's placebo. I find my turns end quicker than previously.

3. I have never had stability issues. Many people speak of stability issues in multiplayer but the next patch is supposedly going to be the multiplayer patch. Lets keep our hopes up because the current multiplayer is not fun at all. If you are looking to LAN with some friends I suggest civ4.

4. Again, this is only an issue with multiplayer and again if you want multiplayer civ4 is the way to go. I prefer civ5 single player, and I am hoping civ5's multiplayer will eventually be fixed but if you want multiplayer now go with civ4.

 

[civnoob13]

"The AI is underwhelming and incompetent (big, big issue for me)"

The combat AI are in a poor, but improving state, and the diplomacy is still pretty poor in some respects (I get negative modifiers for being declared war on and then taking some cities, meaning I am "expanding too aggressively"). However, in other respects the AI are a challenge, for me, anyway. And that is at a low difficulty.

"Performance leaves a lot to be desired"

By this, do you mean game speed? If so, that all depends on what computer you have. The game is very slow for me, even on a normal or small map. However, the new patch dramatically reduced turn speed (to 1/3, believe it or not).

"Stability is quite unpredictable"

The game has never crashed for me.

"Bugs, bugs, bugs"

There are few bugs in the game now, and even fewer ones that negatively effect the game. However, some of the diplomatic modifiers aren't programmed properly.

Personally, I'd get the demo and see how the game runs. If it is running respectably, get the game.

 

[Becomedeath]

I've been keeping an eye on the forums and patchnotes. Following the release of Civ 5 it was quite clear that there were oodles of issues that needed sorting and gripes aplenty about it's performance. Having played every incarnation of Civ since the original, I didn't want the experience of this complete makeover ruined by post release glitches, so I held off.

Having played WoW for nearly 5 years, I know how irritating it can be to play a game that's constantly changing under your feet, however following the latest patch, it looks to me (from the outside) like many of the initial issues have been resolved and it's a good time to start.

Downloaded last night, starting tutorial game as soon as the office releases me from it's iron grip! Hope I'm right in the above conclusion. Looking forward to a whole new Civ!!

 

[Montov]

"The AI is underwhelming and incompetent (big, big issue for me)"

Personally, I'd get the demo and see how the game runs. If it is running respectably, get the game.

The demo doesn't get patched, so it wouldn;t be a good test of performance and gameplay. It would give a general picture, but nothing as specific for the topicstarter.

 

[Brichals]

I've been keeping an eye on the forums and patchnotes. Following the release of Civ 5 it was quite clear that there were oodles of issues that needed sorting and gripes aplenty about it's performance. Having played every incarnation of Civ since the original, I didn't want the experience of this complete makeover ruined by post release glitches, so I held off.

Having played WoW for nearly 5 years, I know how irritating it can be to play a game that's constantly changing under your feet, however following the latest patch, it looks to me (from the outside) like many of the initial issues have been resolved and it's a good time to start.

Downloaded last night, starting tutorial game as soon as the office releases me from it's iron grip! Hope I'm right in the above conclusion. Looking forward to a whole new Civ!!

have fun! It's nowhere near as bad as it could look from the outside.

 

[Becomedeath]

have fun! It's nowhere near as bad as it could look from the outside.

Thanks! It doesn't look bad at all, although some of the early reports did make me think that waiting a while wouldn't hurt.

Having had a look around the forums (sorry for misuse of thread ) I've not found a Civ5 game analysis thread. Can I just start a new one and post a game save or could someone kindly direct me to one? Would be helpful to get some feedback on how my early games are going if at all possible.

Thanks

 

[Agent Cooper]

• The AI is underwhelming and incompetent (big, big issue for me)
• Performance leaves a lot to be desired
• Stability is quite unpredictable
• Bugs, bugs, bugs

Only 2 games played post patch, but this is what I see:

If you have a good feel as to how to use the tactical warfare system in CiV and feel confident in playing at harder levels, the AI will feel quite underwhelming in comparison. Post patch the AI is better in attacking with a large, varied group of troops, but it's still incompetent in how to fight with them. I still see them grouping archers at the front with melee units behind and the occasional unprotected General just standing somewhere to be killed in one move.

Fewer crashes/bugs, especially in the early/mid game. Coincidently, I started a new game an hour ago and it crashed at turn 10 or something like it. No mods. Restarted from turn 0 and no problem so far. Some players experience crashes, some don't. For me it has nothing to do with hardware. CiV is the only game that gives me headaches from time to time.

You won't have to worry about late game micro management because there's little to manage.

The biggest problems with CiV are the AI and diplomacy, but I'm sure you've read that countless times by now. IMO, diplomacy feels like it's non-existent.

I will dare to make the suggestion, that if they exchanged the diplomacy mechanics of CiV with a pure random generator, very few players would notice a difference, because it feels very random as it is now.

 

[Becephalus]

I personally never had performance issues or bugs except on my 5 year old computer, and my 9 month old computer the game has always run like a champ. Not really many crashes either.

I think if you play Civ 4 or TBS strategy generally to build and enjoy yourself and roleplay, then you will enjoy the game a lot. If you buy Civ 5 and use forums to find the best builds, and break out swordsmen and long-swordsmen rush on the ai and just treat it as a Maximin RTS type game, you will find it not a challenge and frustrating. The AI is actually better than the Civ 4 AI, it just has much harder problems to solve.

Honestly I played Civ 4 to death and I am not sure I lost more than1 or 2 cities in most of my playthroughs, and typically 0. That is basically where Civ 5 is as well.

Anyway I have been playing Civ since 1991, and I am finding Civ 5 fun. It is a disappointment in some ways, but so was Civ 3, and life went on, and it is way better than say Civ 4: Col, which I found extremely frustrating as it was so close to a good game, but fell fatally short. With Civ 5 I put in about 75 hours at release, 75 after the first big patch, and another 25 or so after the recent patch. It is not the thousands of hours I put into Civ 1, Civ 2, and SMAC, but I am also older (which means busier, more intelligent, and more able to see weaknesses in game design).

 

[Becephalus]

The biggest problems with CiV are the AI and diplomacy, but I'm sure you've read that countless times by now. IMO, diplomacy feels like it's non-existent.

Make deals with people you want to be friends with. Denounce people you don't. Build coalitions. Most Importantly, maintain a large standing army.

99% of the problem people have with diplomacy is maintaining tiny standing armies, the AI doesn't respect your opinion when it (often foolishly) thinks it can smash you. I am not crazy about the diplomatic system, but it is there, and works about as well as most TBS diplomatic systems.