Civilization V
- Thread starter Nieldo
- Start date
The AI certainly does seem better at defending, also now that it has it's new found passion for building all its cities within 2-3 tiles of each other it can get a bit dicey with the crossfire.
Attacking however it still fails on, but to be fair, so do players, the AI just gives us the non-sentient room of being able to move all our stuff where we want it then spend time setting it up. From playing against other players I can say that isn't the case at all and just a focused disruption on your ability to move into proper tactical positions is what really has any attack fall on it's face.
But, even on the higher difficulties AI can still have big problems keeping up in tech, in particular military tech, which it doesn't seem to care about at all even if it falls hopelessly behind. I think this is largely down to research pacts however, which from the players PoV are just OP as hell and really shouldn't be in the game.
Still, I'm quite enjoying playing now and can't wait for the next couple of major patches to roll out.
Attacking however it still fails on, but to be fair, so do players, the AI just gives us the non-sentient room of being able to move all our stuff where we want it then spend time setting it up. From playing against other players I can say that isn't the case at all and just a focused disruption on your ability to move into proper tactical positions is what really has any attack fall on it's face.
But, even on the higher difficulties AI can still have big problems keeping up in tech, in particular military tech, which it doesn't seem to care about at all even if it falls hopelessly behind. I think this is largely down to research pacts however, which from the players PoV are just OP as hell and really shouldn't be in the game.
Still, I'm quite enjoying playing now and can't wait for the next couple of major patches to roll out.
Still hoping for more patches too. The AI is certainly better but can still be quite stupid when attacking i.e. they'll just sit there and let their unit slowly die from city bombardments.
Also when the game finishes and I choose to continue playing, I only make it a few turns before it crashes. Quite annoying that I can't finish any game.
Also when the game finishes and I choose to continue playing, I only make it a few turns before it crashes. Quite annoying that I can't finish any game.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 881
- Location
- Manchester
It's core mechanics, graphics and general ethos are top notch.
What it lacks is polish and it lacks it to the point it ruins it for me. Diplomacy is borked, there are other debatable things that are currently borked. Balance with big or small civs isnt right but this can be solved.
But the main thing is this- it is far too procedural, and just not fun. Nothing rewarding/random/exciting. I get bored taking the turns and switch off to it as nothing unpredictable happens; I pine for a stack of doom, or something to coe unexpectedly...its tedious at times and that is inexcusable for any form of game.
What it lacks is polish and it lacks it to the point it ruins it for me. Diplomacy is borked, there are other debatable things that are currently borked. Balance with big or small civs isnt right but this can be solved.
But the main thing is this- it is far too procedural, and just not fun. Nothing rewarding/random/exciting. I get bored taking the turns and switch off to it as nothing unpredictable happens; I pine for a stack of doom, or something to coe unexpectedly...its tedious at times and that is inexcusable for any form of game.
Last edited:
im still trying to like it, i really am. Past the initial settler stage, there really isnt that much to do. Wars do not seem as "fun" as they did back in the days of Civ3. I like taking down units from range with archers etc, but also miss the stack of doom slightly. Its all too easy for one unit to stop an attack because you cant get enough ranged units firing on it.
I also miss the stats throughout the game. It was good to see that you needed to pick up military production, on the Histrograph. It was good to see that your war of attrition might be working, and it was good to see when a Civ started outproducing you on culture so you could stop it.
Civ4 added religion, and even though im not religious it was good addition to the game as religion is the cause of so many issues/wars, but also linked to great wealth, as it was in the game. Sure the system may have needed some work but to remove it completely from Civ5 was another mistake.
I installed Civ3 on my old laptop when Civ5 came out and i found my self enjoying that more until my laptop died
I just cant get into this game at all at the moment. I just get bored after a couple of hours and start again hoping it will be different.
Civ 4 just seem so much more immersive. I like conquering the world and building armies etc but Ive got Napoleon total to satisfy which obviously does it much better been that type of game.
No religion is a massive step backwards, even if they had not reworked it surely it would be better than taking it out of the game completely.
Civ 4 just seem so much more immersive. I like conquering the world and building armies etc but Ive got Napoleon total to satisfy which obviously does it much better been that type of game.
No religion is a massive step backwards, even if they had not reworked it surely it would be better than taking it out of the game completely.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 881
- Location
- Manchester
when the lead designer leaves, as he has, 'for better pastures' you know the game is fail.
I really want to play it, but each game there is a route to victory that i do not want to play.
Game is poor and i am really sad to say this seems like the death of civ.
I really want to play it, but each game there is a route to victory that i do not want to play.
Game is poor and i am really sad to say this seems like the death of civ.
Make sure you select "load scenario" for the map for starting spots.
Why do people have to adopt an attitude like this with people they don't know over a game?
I'm glad you enjoy the game, why have a pop at those who don't?
I've played games for 17 years. Every single one since the original I've played ad nauseum. This is the first one that has turned out to be a shadow of its former self.
So blow me.
Oh, and they are still ****ing up mods with the patches. Honestly how hard can it be?
I'm getting fed up of having to constantly revise code that was previously fine.
How is it any different than those of you who DO know the game lamblasting it at every opportunity? Your post reeks of hyprocrisy by the way
I'm speaking from personal experience, I read many many posts on Civ Fanatics and I understand some of the complaints but the majority I read are moot points made by long term players who want a graphics update for Civ IV.
A question was asked, I responded in the most honest manner I could. I'm sorry YOU chose to take my post personally.
I think Civ V much better then Civ IV. Much less complicated. I couldn't never get my head around Civ IV. 9 games out of 10 I lost. 
It being 20th century and I just got gunpowder 
My empire always seemed to go bankrupt and end up way behind on the tech race. Fighting seem to hard and slow in Civ IV. I find the game a bit dull if you not expanding.
Still prefer the Total War games.
It being 20th century and I just got gunpowder My empire always seemed to go bankrupt and end up way behind on the tech race. Fighting seem to hard and slow in Civ IV. I find the game a bit dull if you not expanding.Still prefer the Total War games.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 4,223
- Location
- Returning video tapes
I have been seriously contemplating loading up CIV after abandoning it in disgust, a few weeks after release. The main boards however don't fill me with confidence. The same complaints even now.
I didn't know that guy had gone. It's a bit rich to send CIV in a (shall we say) controversial direction, then bugger off when large sections of the community point out the flaws of his vision. Though, in his defence I do like 1UPT, as stacks of doom killed the old games for me. It just needs tweaking.
In the end it's the lack of micro managing that got me down with CIV 5. It didn't feel like 'my empire'.
I didn't know that guy had gone. It's a bit rich to send CIV in a (shall we say) controversial direction, then bugger off when large sections of the community point out the flaws of his vision. Though, in his defence I do like 1UPT, as stacks of doom killed the old games for me. It just needs tweaking.
In the end it's the lack of micro managing that got me down with CIV 5. It didn't feel like 'my empire'.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 881
- Location
- Manchester
I dont blame the bloke personally, who knows what went on.
All I know is the game looks really good, but just fails to deliver.
Diplomacy, one unit per tile and happiness are all really not working.
This guy says it best;
http://www.bitmob.com/articles/the-bad-sequel-how-the-civilization-series-and-i-grew-apart
All I know is the game looks really good, but just fails to deliver.
Diplomacy, one unit per tile and happiness are all really not working.
This guy says it best;
http://www.bitmob.com/articles/the-bad-sequel-how-the-civilization-series-and-i-grew-apart
I am having fun with the game. I have played Civ since it first came out on the Amiga and even though I have had countless hours of enjoyment from playing the previous version (BTS) I am thoroughly enjoying Civ V.
I am just embracing the differences, thankfully no crashes at all for me, and I remind myself of how I felt about vanilla Civ IV when it first came out as it was greatly improved by several patches as well as the Warlords and BTS addons.
There are things that I miss from Civ IV and glad that some aspects have changed but as I still have BTS on my HD I can play it still if I want to. Since Civ V came out I haven't bothered to launch Civ IV.
Hopefully when Civ V has been out for a while and the full sdk kit has been released I'm hoping its potential might be realised to be even greater than it is now. Even without the full sdk I am playing with some really good mods now.
Having followed much of the development of Civ V, and watching the videos of it playing, I wasn't in the least bit disappointed or surprised when it was released, it wasn't as though it changed much from the final version I bought on the day of its release. Sure the AI was, and still is in a way, a bag of spanners but so it was with Civ IV. If I hadn't have been sure of what I was pre-ordering from Steam I would have held off and just played the demo.
Horses for courses and all of that I guess
I am just embracing the differences, thankfully no crashes at all for me, and I remind myself of how I felt about vanilla Civ IV when it first came out as it was greatly improved by several patches as well as the Warlords and BTS addons.
There are things that I miss from Civ IV and glad that some aspects have changed but as I still have BTS on my HD I can play it still if I want to. Since Civ V came out I haven't bothered to launch Civ IV.
Hopefully when Civ V has been out for a while and the full sdk kit has been released I'm hoping its potential might be realised to be even greater than it is now. Even without the full sdk I am playing with some really good mods now.
Having followed much of the development of Civ V, and watching the videos of it playing, I wasn't in the least bit disappointed or surprised when it was released, it wasn't as though it changed much from the final version I bought on the day of its release. Sure the AI was, and still is in a way, a bag of spanners but so it was with Civ IV. If I hadn't have been sure of what I was pre-ordering from Steam I would have held off and just played the demo.
Horses for courses and all of that I guess
How is it any different than those of you who DO know the game lamblasting it at every opportunity? Your post reeks of hyprocrisy by the way
What is hypocritical about it?
And so are we.
You naturally expect more, and we got a game with less in it than its predecessors..
It is not the progress that was seen from Civ - Civ Net - II - III - IV.
Keep everybody happy and thats it you have won the game. Nothing else.
Just build happy buildings and bingo. Game yours.
This isn't multi layered strategy. It's a **** boring one dimentional game.
I didn't see anyone asking you a question, neither did you quote anyone.
Just seemed like the outburst from a fanboi who didn't like what he was reading. Why else would you emote it with 'can't cope with change'.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 772
- Location
- Telford
can anybody help me?
i have a ATI 5770 and the latest drivers but when i start up Civ 5 (DX11) my mouse curser seems way out of position).
anybody know of a solution
i have a ATI 5770 and the latest drivers but when i start up Civ 5 (DX11) my mouse curser seems way out of position).
anybody know of a solution
I just decided to buy the double civ pack to try it out, and Inca are horribly broken just like Babylon were before the library nerf lol.
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2896/civ5screen0027.png
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6634/civ5screen0028.png
Random Earth map with the youngest age for more mountains. You might be wondering how exactly that can be broken, on first glance all those cities look horribly placed.
But Inca get a unique tile improvement called the Terrace, which can be built on any hill tile, and provides +1 food, plus an extra +1 food PER adjacent mountain tile. Plus all their units ignore hill movement costs, and roads + railroads built on hills cost no maintanance, plus half maintanence on flat tiles.
Inca + mountains with hills next to them = lol, imba, overpowered. Even better is building your cities next to the mountains for Observatories all over the place. Such city placements would completely cripple any other Civ, but instead Inca gets superpowered by mountains + hills.
But what happens if you get a map without any mountains nearby? Absolutely nothing, then your just as good as any other civ with massively reduced upkeep costs for your roads. But start bias ensures that you start near some mountains 75% of the time, so you can simply make a new map if you dont get any.
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2896/civ5screen0027.png
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6634/civ5screen0028.png
Random Earth map with the youngest age for more mountains. You might be wondering how exactly that can be broken, on first glance all those cities look horribly placed.
But Inca get a unique tile improvement called the Terrace, which can be built on any hill tile, and provides +1 food, plus an extra +1 food PER adjacent mountain tile. Plus all their units ignore hill movement costs, and roads + railroads built on hills cost no maintanance, plus half maintanence on flat tiles.
Inca + mountains with hills next to them = lol, imba, overpowered. Even better is building your cities next to the mountains for Observatories all over the place. Such city placements would completely cripple any other Civ, but instead Inca gets superpowered by mountains + hills.
But what happens if you get a map without any mountains nearby? Absolutely nothing, then your just as good as any other civ with massively reduced upkeep costs for your roads. But start bias ensures that you start near some mountains 75% of the time, so you can simply make a new map if you dont get any.
Last edited: