Civilization V- Might actually be good now. Stay tuned.

[dusematic]

Also, I have a couple gripes.  The bonus resource icon yield seems way too low.  They should think about doubling the gains at minimum.  +1 food for a wheat resource?  That's botched.  Unlike in Civ 4, the wheat doesn't give you health, and you can't trade it, so it's just +1 food?  Why even have it in the game?  It's essentially worthless.  You can make an argument that the luxury and strategic resources are fine since they net other effects.  But the bonus yields are botched.

Another thing is, which I just kind of realized, is that the one unit per hex switch essentially ruined multiplayer.  Don't get me wrong, gameplay-wise, tactically, I love it.  But multiplayer, unlike single-player, is played out on "simultaneous turns."  This speeds up gameplay, instead of everyone separately taking their turn, everyone moves at once, and there is usually a turn timer enabled.  So, in previous Civs, when stacks were king, you simply had to trouble yourself with one army while you were engaged in war with another player.  Sure, you might have two armies, or one army and a couple guys scattered around scouting the enemy base, but the meat of your army was usually concentrated in one or two tiles at all times.  

Because of the simultaneous turns, there was often a "race" to see who could move a unit or a stack of units first.  For example, if I have an army that I think can destroy an opposing player's army, I'd try to attack it, and he'd try to scamper across a river, or up a hill, or in a nearby forest tile to either escape or get a defensive bonus a mitigate my numerical advantage.  This was all fine and dandy when you had more men but less tiles to worry about.  I mean, if you have 100 men on a tile but they all move as one, then it's essentially just one big mega unit.  

Now, with simultaneous turns, and one unit per hex, it becomes a huge problem.  Your army is spread out.  Each unit is far more valuable than what its counterpart would be in previous Civs.  The tactical implications are much more vast of losing a unit, or taking a tile, or losing a tile, etc.  The problem is of course, that the "race" to to move or attack first becomes ultra-critical.  If my army is 7 units and I lose two because you got the jump on me, then I'm basically finished.  With so many more tiles to deal with, and so little time, and so much at stake, it becomes a farce.  

So, it's somewhat ironic that by trying to make the game more tactical, it had the reverse effect in multiplayer, where online warfare is largely a random affair based on whoever has less lag and can click faster.  

[Njal]

While gold is indeed king I find that the range of starting positions that are acceptable is still much broader than Civ 4. In 4 playing at Emperor I would regenerate the map a lot looking for an acceptable start (generally a nice long river with flood plains).

In 5 I rarely reject a start although I would still like a regenerate map option for when I end  up in the tundra. I even did quite well with a start that was essentially hills forests and a small river.

[dusematic]

While gold is indeed king I find that the range of starting positions that are acceptable is still much broader than Civ 4. In 4 playing at Emperor I would regenerate the map a lot looking for an acceptable start (generally a nice long river with flood plains).

In 5 I rarely reject a start although I would still like a regenerate map option for when I end  up in the tundra. I even did quite well with a start that was essentially hills forests and a small river.

Disagree.  You're literally ruined by a bad start in Civ 5.  Yo won't have the gold to build anything.  All gold generation is based off tile improvement.  There are no cottages that scale to generate more gold over time, nor is there a built in gold reservoir (i.e. tech slider).  In Civ 4, if you have a bad start, you're at a disadvantage but you're not finished.  In Civ 4 production was king, not gold.  And settlers and workers were built off of food and production, so a bad start was simply a hiccup that you could recover from.

[Typhon]

Add to that the fact that you can buy anything in the game (save wonders) and gold does seem a bit over-valued.

[dusematic]

I just made a post on the official forums detailing the "paradox" that I described above with regard to one unit per hex destroying multiplayer.  Bad idea.  Even though the official forums are awash with criticism of the game, there is still a staunch army of people who consider it their duty to defend the game unto death. 

[Lantyssa]

I am finding that my gold income determines my entire empire's effectiveness far more than anything else.  My values also fluctuate wildly from turn to turn.  I'll jump from negative income to fifty (without a golden age) and anywhere in between constantly.

I'm also wondering if Hiawatha is grossly overpowered under certain maps.  I've had two games in a row where he's dominating.  I'll be one or two eras ahead of most everyone and he's an even or an era ahead of me, while also maintaining a massive army.  I'm going to lose my current prince game because I'm fighting him to a stalemate where he throws endless troops and missiles at my tiny army that takes me twenty years to replace, while he's built the first Apollo program module.

[Merusk]

While gold is indeed king I find that the range of starting positions that are acceptable is still much broader than Civ 4. In 4 playing at Emperor I would regenerate the map a lot looking for an acceptable start (generally a nice long river with flood plains).

In 5 I rarely reject a start although I would still like a regenerate map option for when I end  up in the tundra. I even did quite well with a start that was essentially hills forests and a small river.

I've got to agree with Duse on this one.  Not only that but the 'starting point' generation seems fucked at times.  I had one that started me on 6 tiles of tundra with ice in the next row, four turns away from forest/ grasslands with a barbarian encampment.  That game ended quickly and badly.

[Merusk]

I am now convinced that if you want to steamroll a military win in this game, Japan is the obvious answer. It's not even fair. By the time the rest of the word wakes up in 1500, you own 40% of the map.

Disagree. I used to think Japan was great but then I tried Greece. My god. Top tier units in early game is broken. Fastest land unit, outruns tanks, and able to move after attack? Horse-fuckers them all. Companion Cavalry is overpowered. Just get 2-3 of those beasts and watch empires fall as you pillage tiles like crazy and crush capitals before they can expand.

If you have no horses, tech up to bronze working and enjoy the hoplite. No special resources required. Form 2-3 brigade by chopping forests, sell away Open Border rights for 50gp to each Civ and start hitting nearest unsuspecting Civilization. Once you got Great General going, you're nigh unstoppable. Honor Social Policy for extra firepower, Patronage for gold spending on City States.

I didn't have horses around Rome, but plenty of mountains and found the same was true of Legions once I'd tech rushed to Iron Working.  They were just ungodly powerful vs the Spearmen everyone else was trying to stop me with.  (Aztecs didn't built a single Jaguar, more proof the AI is gimped as it will just build the highest shield unit, never mind he was surrounded by jungle.)

[Ingmar]

Yeah something is screwed up with how the AI decides what unit types to build. Until the infantry/spear infantry lines converge in the industrial era their troop selection is totally out of whack.

Thinking about it though to some extent that may just reflect the AI getting resource-screwed.

[Tarami]

So yeah, after four games I'm beginning to feel I'm pretty much done with Civ V. There are just too many issues that stop it from feeling particularly smooth to play, like the heinous build priorities of puppet cities (Armoury, really?), weak enemy AI and gold's overemphasis in combination with the low production. Somehow it just doesn't play well, but kind of limps along.

Oh, and the workers' automation is fucking awful. I have to manually go back over built roads to remove any surplus tiles just so it won't drain my coffers completely.

[dusematic]

Yeah, the game is a huge disappointment.  I think it will get better with patches and expansions, but this fucking game is an amateur hour botchjob.  There are so many goddamn bugs, glitches, and imbalances it'll make you sick.  

And, for those interested in multiplay, I honestly think their design decisions have unwittingly eviscerated it.  Ironic for a game that was supposed to emphasize it.  Although that could have been just talk.  You simply cannot have a turn-based  strategy game utilizing simultaneous turns and their design principles.  Entire wars between experienced players just come down to the first few moments of a single turn and who is able to get the cheese quick-draw on the other.

Think about it.  You can't stack units, in single player, this works great.  In multiplayer, whoever is the twitchiest/least laggy is able to exploit all the counters (e.g. spear v. horse) and/or reap the terrain bonuses and/or soften up the enemy with ranged.  I've had half my army destroyed in less than 10 seconds simply because I wasn't fast enough.  It's ridiculous.

[MrHat]

Yeah, the game is a huge disappointment.  I think it will get better with patches and expansions, but this fucking game is an amateur hour botchjob.  There are so many goddamn bugs, glitches, and imbalances it'll make you sick.  

And, for those interested in multiplay, I honestly think their design decisions have unwittingly eviscerated it.  Ironic for a game that was supposed to emphasize it.  Although that could have been just talk.  You simply cannot have a turn-based  strategy game utilizing simultaneous turns and their design principles.  Entire wars between experienced players just come down to the first few moments of a single turn and who is able to get the cheese quick-draw on the other.

Think about it.  You can't stack units, in single player, this works great.  In multiplayer, whoever is the twitchiest/least laggy is able to exploit all the counters (e.g. spear v. horse) and/or reap the terrain bonuses and/or soften up the enemy with ranged.  I've had half my army destroyed in less than 10 seconds simply because I wasn't fast enough.  It's ridiculous.

Wait, there's not even a turn-by-turn option in MP?

[naum]

Yeah, the game is a huge disappointment.  I think it will get better with patches and expansions, but this fucking game is an amateur hour botchjob.  There are so many goddamn bugs, glitches, and imbalances it'll make you sick.

It's been that way that last few iterations in the series — taking at least a patch or two post-release to put the game in the state it should have been at release time. Don't know how they test things, but whatever scheme is used, it sounds like it's just not working and live customers are the real beta test.

[dusematic]

Yeah, the game is a huge disappointment.  I think it will get better with patches and expansions, but this fucking game is an amateur hour botchjob.  There are so many goddamn bugs, glitches, and imbalances it'll make you sick.  

And, for those interested in multiplay, I honestly think their design decisions have unwittingly eviscerated it.  Ironic for a game that was supposed to emphasize it.  Although that could have been just talk.  You simply cannot have a turn-based  strategy game utilizing simultaneous turns and their design principles.  Entire wars between experienced players just come down to the first few moments of a single turn and who is able to get the cheese quick-draw on the other.

Think about it.  You can't stack units, in single player, this works great.  In multiplayer, whoever is the twitchiest/least laggy is able to exploit all the counters (e.g. spear v. horse) and/or reap the terrain bonuses and/or soften up the enemy with ranged.  I've had half my army destroyed in less than 10 seconds simply because I wasn't fast enough.  It's ridiculous.

Wait, there's not even a turn-by-turn option in MP?

Nope.  Nor is there a switch to set how fast you want the turn timer to be.  BOTCHED.

[dusematic]

Yeah, the game is a huge disappointment.  I think it will get better with patches and expansions, but this fucking game is an amateur hour botchjob.  There are so many goddamn bugs, glitches, and imbalances it'll make you sick.

It's been that way that last few iterations in the series — taking at least a patch or two post-release to put the game in the state it should have been at release time. Don't know how they test things, but whatever scheme is used, it sounds like it's just not working and live customers are the real beta test.

On Youtube there is a video of Sid floating around where he gives a keynote on "how to make a AAA title on a shoestring budget."  Enough said.

[Merusk]

Yeah, the game is a huge disappointment.  I think it will get better with patches and expansions, but this fucking game is an amateur hour botchjob.  There are so many goddamn bugs, glitches, and imbalances it'll make you sick.

It's been that way that last few iterations in the series — taking at least a patch or two post-release to put the game in the state it should have been at release time. Don't know how they test things, but whatever scheme is used, it sounds like it's just not working and live customers are the real beta test.

That's pretty much the definition of the game industry these days and consoles aren't immune to it.

[Tannhauser]

I don't think Civ V is horrible, it just needs a couple of patches.  It's an elegant version of Civ which has many new features I love.  That said I'm disappointed that Sid would let a Civ go out like this with his name on it.  I guess we have to bump him down a notch or at least I do. 

[Tarami]

I don't mind the way it should play, only the way it plays currently. My biggest gripe period (I don't play MP against other people, only with) is the automation. It's just terrible and/or makes no sense, I don't know which. I love boardgames and Civ 5 certainly feels like one, so I have no problems with the changes in gameplay (except maybe Policies, which seem rather tacked-on) per se. It's just that when they removed so much fine control, the automation had to step up to cover for it. It hasn't.

[Malakili]

I'm really not following you guys on a lot of this criticism.  I mean, the AI has done some stupid stuff diplomacy wise, but thats really about the worst I can say. 

[Njal]

While gold is indeed king I find that the range of starting positions that are acceptable is still much broader than Civ 4. In 4 playing at Emperor I would regenerate the map a lot looking for an acceptable start (generally a nice long river with flood plains).

In 5 I rarely reject a start although I would still like a regenerate map option for when I end  up in the tundra. I even did quite well with a start that was essentially hills forests and a small river.

Disagree.  You're literally ruined by a bad start in Civ 5.  Yo won't have the gold to build anything.  All gold generation is based off tile improvement.  There are no cottages that scale to generate more gold over time, nor is there a built in gold reservoir (i.e. tech slider).  In Civ 4, if you have a bad start, you're at a disadvantage but you're not finished.  In Civ 4 production was king, not gold.  And settlers and workers were built off of food and production, so a bad start was simply a hiccup that you could recover from.

I actually agree with you it's just that the range of good start sites is wider than in 4. What I'm saying is that it's harder to get a bad start in 5. A lack of resources will certainly sink you in either strategic or happiness resources. Like I said at Emperor in 4 I would regen the map 5-10 times to get an acceptable start. In 5 I rarely restart.

After three or four trial games I've yet to lose at King and I'm doing well in my current Emperor game. I've won as England and France and Rome so I'm not even using the overpowered civs.

[Tarami]

I'm really not following you guys on a lot of this criticism.  I mean, the AI has done some stupid stuff diplomacy wise, but thats really about the worst I can say. 

Please, the AI can't even do a naval invasion. It doesn't even know how to compose a proper army, or I wouldn't be fighting 8+ Longbowmen whenever I fight the English. The Chinese had NINE Chu-ko-nu last night and no cavalry. It's a great unit and all, but some protection is recommendable.

[Lantyssa]

Did they have horses?  If they did, are you sure they hadn't traded them away?  A lack of Strategic Resources could account for that.

[rk47]

I had the same experience.English Longbowmen. Shit load of them. Nothing else but Longbowmen.
And early modern age, 3-4 artillery in the open with no infantry cover. They couldn't even setup to fire cause when they do, my Cavalry just waltzed in and auto kill.

Early game AI also suffers from lack of urgency when rushed. Hoplite rushing with Greece is too strong vs the AI who cannot adapt quickly enough. On Marathon I took out 5 civilizations from starting force of 3 hoplites and eventually bloated to 6 with a Great General in the center of the formation. No contest.

Tech races rendered meaningless when AI didn't even bother to research military tech fast enough. I teched to Mech. Infantry and suddenly every lead they had fell apart because they were still stuck with Infantry. This is when I was really behind by using Chu Ko Nu and Longswordsmen vs their Riflemen + Cavalry as stopgap solution till the techs unlocked.

Also, even if they lack resources, they shd at least build a melee unit to take over actual cities. Longbowmen can't melee, hence cannot land a finishing blow. I saw city states at 0 HP but the English cannot take it over because all they brought are longbowmen. 

[dusematic]

Interesting, I've only played like, one warm up game versus the AI, then dipped straight into multiplayer.  Nice to know both sides of the pond are befouled.

[Tarami]

Did they have horses?  If they did, are you sure they hadn't traded them away?  A lack of Strategic Resources could account for that.

No, fair enough, I'm not sure, although they didn't have more than one or two infantry in any case. However, it's not a unique occurance in any way, every AI civ seems to work this way. It builds whatever unit has the best attack strength (special units and artillery, in other words) and the only case I seem to find where they mix is when they've made technological advancements which have made another type of unit the new "best" unit.

[Modern Angel]

I haven't touched it in days after playing the everloving shit out of it for the first week.

I think the streamlining was the right idea but they've stripped most of the charm out of it. It's the little things that I miss... Wonder movies, graphs and maps at endgame showing the progress of the game, being able to Retire at any point and get those doodads and a score in the Hall of Fame, Health as a cap on population and something to juggle.

I don't know. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare it directly to Civ 4 with all the expansions and patches but the entire enterprise is feeling a little soulless after several Epic, Huge playthroughs. There are certainly things that I like, such as the Culture trees, but it's very self-consciously a game instead of an addictive quasi-simulation of history. Frankly, for me, I play strategy games almost exclusively of the Paradox/AGEOD/Matrix mold where it's a meandering novel, not a 20 page comic book.

[rk47]

I think a proper AI with World War II mod would definitely make this game quite enjoyable. Overall, the vanilla game is not too terrible but the happiness & AI kinda dulled the experience. I've finished 5 games so far and none of it was a struggle. It's more like I'm just snowballing my advantage till they can't stop me.

[Malakili]

I haven't touched it in days after playing the everloving shit out of it for the first week.

I think the streamlining was the right idea but they've stripped most of the charm out of it. It's the little things that I miss... Wonder movies, graphs and maps at endgame showing the progress of the game, being able to Retire at any point and get those doodads and a score in the Hall of Fame, Health as a cap on population and something to juggle.

The end game graphs and such would be nice for sure.

[Modern Angel]

The game for sure isn't hard. I suck at Civ. Suck. Hard. I've destroyed this game on everything but top difficulty. I had one game as Germany where I could have, no shit, ended the game by 800AD. On a Huge map. I chose not to because it struck me as incredibly stupid.

[Paelos]

I haven't touched it in days after playing the everloving shit out of it for the first week.

Actually, I'm the same. I switched over to Minecraft again and Rome:TW because I wanted to play some games with depth. I spent probably 15-20 hours conquering the whole Empire, and probably another 10 hours paving my paradise in Minecraft.

The reason I couldn't get back into Civ 5 wasn't totally clear to me until I put it down for a while. The workers aren't doing the right things. I have to micromanage my land just to get the proper results. Also, if you start on your own island, there's a solid chance NOBODY will ever find you if you don't want them to. The AI doesn't seem to build ships at all. I've gone through a game up to 1600, conquered my own island, conquered an island with two city states, and subdued the one other Civ I've found by dominating their island while I wait to amass my units for the final push. There's 4 other civilizations I've never even seen. No boats, no contact. NADA.

[Surlyboi]

I'm running into the same things the rest of you are. I'm in the future and the only one even close is Montezuma with his WWII era stuff.

That said, after he abused my gracious open-border policy to stage his attack on a Catherine the Great I'd marginalized and left to one city on my far border, I'm about to stomp the ever-living shit out of him. Then I'll put this bitch down and go back to playing Reach or something.

[Lantyssa]

The game for sure isn't hard. I suck at Civ. Suck. Hard. I've destroyed this game on everything but top difficulty. I had one game as Germany where I could have, no shit, ended the game by 800AD. On a Huge map. I chose not to because it struck me as incredibly stupid.

I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong then, because at Prince I'm not winning hands down, and probably going to lose my current game.

[El Gallo]

Getting passed the annoying bugs and the UI, the problem is that the game is too dumbed-down.  It's less of an empire-builder and more a stripped-down Panzer General game.  I think Civ 4, 2, and Alpha Centauri are the three best games ever made.  But I'm having a real problem getting into Civ 5. 

[Malakili]

Getting passed the annoying bugs and the UI, the problem is that the game is too dumbed-down.  It's less of an empire-builder and more a stripped-down Panzer General game.  I think Civ 4, 2, and Alpha Centauri are the three best games ever made.  But I'm having a real problem getting into Civ 5. 

I can see where you are coming from, but I actually think that the result is a much more fun game on a turn by turn basis.  I liked Civ 4, don't get me wrong, but in Civ 5 I feel like I'm making important decisions every turn (where to position troops, etc).  Then again, things like Religion which I never really cared for as a mechanic to begin with are gone here, and I can see why losing some of that stuff would rub long time fans the wrong way

[Modern Angel]

I don't really feel like it's dumbed down. That would be the wrong word. There are very meaningful choices to be made every turn, as you said, and I like that. The turn by turn gameplay is better. It's the holistic view that's lacking. There's such a thing as too streamlined, though, such a thing as too clean. I feel the same way about WoW. It's become too on rails and meaningful, messy, potentially not perfectly balanced choices have been removed.