Civ5 and Steam question

The Game Room
21

The Civics, I enjoyed changing the structure of my government and society.

The maturing plots of land, I enjoyed watching my cottages turn to villages, towns and then cities and seeing their wealth grow…and really liked when some punk pissed me off so I’d go a plunderin’.

Luxury resources should be a bonus, but they shouldn’t be absolutely necessary for a civilization. It seems every city you found in Civ V MUST be surrounded by 6 luxury items or that towns a waste. The Russian Empire did just fine with some beaver pelts.

Roads, criss-crossing your empire with infrastructure was fun, in Civ V I’m only able to maintain an anemic artery even in the late game.

Scale, I love historical scenarios and the first 4 civs were flexible in scale. Depending on the size of the map of Earth England might be 4 squares or 30. The tactical combat in Civ V restricts this severely.

Religion, sure IV wasn’t perfect and I think the team decided it was detracting from the game elements they wanted players to focus on, but still, waging Crusades or Jihads was fun.

Troop management/movement, getting an army from point A to point B is just a pain in the ass in V.

Modding, creating and trying out what others created was a big part of the draw, V has a more developed mod program but theres an initial steep learning curve that few (including myself) are willing to undertake.

Am I the only one forced to watch half that damn opening movie before the game will start?

I should add there are some things I really like about Civ V, but it’s still just not as much fun as IV.

22

Keep in mind that you’re probably comparing civ 4 with 3 expansions to civ 5 the base game. I’m sure they’ll add a lot of cool features over time. It’s more fair to compare civ 5 with the base civ 4 game.

23

I actually don’t believe this. I think they’re going to make overprice mnipacks with nothing of much value and sell those instead. More profit.
DLC has pretty much ruined the concept of the Expansion pack. Our decline is pretty near complete.

Stone Age: We’ll mail you software, and sometimes fixed.
Bronze Age: We’ll sell you software in a store.
Iron Age: We’ll sell you software in a store. It will be buggy as hell because we’re just shoving it out for Christmas. Later on there will be some fixed, which you have to manually alter.
Medieval Age: We’ll sell you software in a store. It will be buggy as hell because we’re just shoving it out for Christmas. But now we have basic internet and we fix some of it automatically. You can buy big expansion packs, which are often a good deal if you like the game.
Renaissance: We’ll sell you software, but stores are so retro and we’re so obsessed with ludicrously high production values we only put out four games a year per genre, if that. It has fewer hardware conflicts but many small software bugs.
Modern Age: We’ll sell you software in our online storefront, provide no support, and the game’s incomplete but you can pay for overpriced and generally useless packs to bring it back up to “version 1.” Often these are things included in the game code but we don’t let you use it unless we flip the switch.

24

Agreed. That was a bit of fun.

Again, agreed. The “trading posts” are a pale comparison. And since they don’t change over time in appearance, they’re not much to look at.

Now this is completely right. Its a bit silly to need luxury resources more than you need iron or coal.

I don’t miss having too many roads, but I see your point.

I like the 1upt. You can’t bring a knife to a gunfight anymore, by like saying having a giant stack of inferior units that can beat an opponent by sheer weight of numbers.

I wish they had included religions in the game in some way, but make them as polarizing as they are in Civ IV. In IV you could found a religion, spread it to your neighbors and have an easy time manipulating the AIs into stuff. I think that at least religions in Civ V should give some kindf of happiness bonus. (if they had implemented religions)

Its not that bad, IMO. But then I haven’t fought a lot of wars in game. I’m guessing that amphibious landings kinda suck, but I have not tried on yet. In Civ IV, in the late game when I was going for a spaceship victory I always knew which civ was going to attack me and screw up my win. So as soon as I could build them I would make a bunch of marines and troop transports and tanks on transports and keep them just out of sight/ range of some part of my enemies coast. When the war started and they committed forces to the front line I’d launch an amphibious landing on their barely protected flank, flatten a few cities and generally pillage everything until they surrendered. Good times. Too bad we can’t have vassals in V. Puppet states suck.

I never tried to mod it or used mods, so I really have no opinion on it.

Lol. No you’re not. I’ve seen the first 20 or so seconds of it so much I’m tired of hearing the old guy say “Welcome back, my son…I’ve missed you…”

I feel the same way and believe me, at launch I nearly got banned from Civfanatics for bashing the game. (It was just plain awful at launch). Its been improved, but if they ever make a Civ VI they need to include a lot of the things you mentioned…oh, and make the intro movie easier to stop.

25

Regrettably, Smiling Bandit is probably right; they ARE selling expansion packs, and it amounts to five bucks for “hey, now you can play Polynesia.” We have seen the future, and it’s not promising.

I like Civ V more than some people but it’s two steps forward and two back from IV, and I honestly believe there will be no expansion packs of any significance. What you have is what it always will be.

26

I think it would have worked better if they had merged the combat rules and stacking of Civ V with the elements of Civ IV.

27

Gah, phone won’t let me post it. Google “disable civ 5 intro” and follow the instructions on any of dozen of sites. You only need to change a 0 to a 1 and it won’t load the movie anymore.

28

Right click the game in your game library, and select properties. The option to manually check for updates should be in there somewhere.

29

I can see what they were trying to do, but sometimes a bunch of elements that make sense don’t come together all that well.

For all the complaining about it, it’s not that bad a game, it’s just that it’s not any better than Civ IV, and to be honest the game feel unfinished and raw in a lot of ways. The curious lack of pomp and circumstance when you win… it’s like they just couldn’t be bothered.

I was trying to put my finger on just what the problem is today, and it occurred to me that the policy trees are flawed, and you know what the policy trees now remind me of? Talent trees in World of Warcraft. Seriously, look at 'em. Policy trees are smaller but it’s otherwise lifted clean.

And that is really disassociated from everything else in Civ and everything else in the entire line of games. In World of Warcraft, the talent tree is pretty much just a carrot; get another level, you get a talent that boosts some ability. Civ is esentially get to the next social policy level, get a carrot. There’s no connection between the social policy trees except for a few being mutually exclusive, and in fact there’s no connection between them and any other aspect of the game except for the carrot you get. Civics in Civ 4 were endlessly chageable and allowed you to change your civ’s strengths based on your needs; policies in Civ V are just a pile of carrots.

That’s one of the reasons, maybe the main reason, why Civ V feels like just a compiling of carrots. Science, money and culture aren’t interconnected; you can’t set a slider to make more money and get less science, or add some culture at the expense of your treasury. The removal of religions takes away another thing that connected various aspects of the game, as does the concept of war weariness. Individually, I wasn’t a huge fan of religion (and corporations were stupid) but all these things worked together in a gestalt fashion to give you a management challenge. Between those and the change from civics to policies, the game doesn’t quite have the feel of your civilization being, well, a CIVILIZATION, as opposed to a bunch of production spots. Happiness is a culture-wide thing but its implementation is in many respects jarringly illogical.

Some things could be fixed through modification… the emphasis on luxury resources, for one thing, is overdone by a huge factor. But I don’t have time to learn whatever programming language the mod software’s in.

30

RickJay, I agree with most of your points (I have never played World of Warcraft so can’t comment).

I especially agree with your point about it being unfinished. Apart from the areas you covered there is also the very poor instruction manual. It is almost as if they ran out of time to produce it properly. Also, the huge Patch so soon after release flags that insufficient testing was done.

I also believe adjustment needs to be made for raw materials. If you need a specific material to build a unit (for instance) then there should be the capacity to store that material- that is any unused mineral is stockpiled per turn and can be drawn on or even sold off.

That said, I do enjoy playing it. It’s not bad, it could just be a lot better.

31

I like the way science/gold is set up, but what I find ridiculous is the way happiness is calculated. As said above it is completely illogical.

Can you imagine that when Germany declared war on the U.S. and we took their capitol the entire country shut down because they were so angry that we added another city? I understand unhappiness due to city size, due to just being captured, but due to empire size after a successful war is just asinine.

32

The history of the development of Civilization games is the history of managing empire expansion; basically, what do you do to prevent the game from becoming nothing but a race to produce settlers?

In III, they had the corruption mechanic. In IV, it was a cost mechanic. Neither was popular and neither really worked particularly well so this time they tried the happiness mechanic.

Whatever the faults of corruption or city cost, you could at least conceive of how they could make sense. Big empires can cost a lot, after all, so the game placed the weight of owning a big empire on you in the form of lost production or lost gold.

But the mechanic in Civ V is nonsensical. It has the desired effect in a way - you can’t expand too fast - but it’s ludicrous on its face, as you point out. It also creates a perverse incentive to further drive the player towards the acquisition of luxuries. Often I have thought “I need to snag another luxury so I can found/conquer another city.” That doesn’t make a lick of sense.

The irony is that one of the things a lot of people hate about Civ V - the hex map and single-unit tile limits - I actually really like. It’s the rest of it that puzzles the hell out of me.

I wasn’t there and I don’t know, but the game feels rushed. The lack of polish we’ve already talked about - the lack of an end game, the rushed manual, the useless in game help, the unimpressive data screens, some remarkably mediocre graphical touches, the goddamn movie you can only half skip. But there’s other hints of it too; I can’t believe the game was extensively playtested, given the strange imbalances in the game’s mechanics, the absolutely colossal disparity in civilization ability values, stuff like that.

33

One thing I wish Civ would do and I think would make it more realistic, is make it to where you can import food from other cities. Las Vegas doesn’t have to grow its own food for its city. That way you can have specialization and it’d add a whole new flavor of warfare. Now everyone just protects their biggest cities. It’ll switch to making people decide on whether their main thrust should be at the production centers or the breadbasket.

34

Can’t you supply the city with food by cultivating maritime city states or building granaries and hospitals?

35

Just a heads up, I’m going to try starting some schedule civ 5 multiplayer games for SDMBers. Post there if you’re interested.