So I gave Civ5 another shot...

[Sulaco]

So I sat down and gave Civ 5 another shot a few weeks back. I was desperately looking for my next strategy games obsession, and while I hated the game at launch and shortly after, I thought "Maybe some patches have fixed some stuff".

So I sat down. I gave it a go. I started to get used to the simplified interface and hand-holding style. Ok, it's geared towards beginners and people who didn't play the previous games. It can still be a good game. I found myself starting to open up to it and enjoy.

....and then it hit me....


The game is still a steaming pile of shit. More specifically, the AI is, without question, some of the WORST, most nonsensical garbage I've ever seen. It doesn't behave rationally, realistically, intelligently, or coherently. In all, I sunk nearly 10 hours into my latest game, and wish I hadn't have invested more than 2.

I could go on a length and give very specific examples, but I doubt anyone really cares or is reading. Suffice to say, on the THIRD HIGHEST DIFFICULTY setting, the AI was an utter and complete joke.

-'Friendly' civs would all of the sudden declare war, and then ask for peace a couple turns later, without so much as TRYING to attack.

-Immediately after war with some Civs, or relations would be "friendly". Literally...the NEXT TURN.

-And the absolute worst: I would be declared war on, and have several cities COMPLETELY UNDEFENDED. The attacking civ's units would enter the screen, move around the periphery of my cities, and never actually attack. All the while my little garrisoned "archers" whittle away at them while they nonsensically move about like spastic ants on the edges of my cities. This is on the THIRD highest difficulty setting as well.

Totally unacceptable.

It's pretty, it's streamlined, and it's fun to look at. As an actual strategy game, it's a miserable failure. Totally inexcusable now as well after a year and half worth of patches.

 

[QuantumPion]

So I sat down and gave Civ 5 another shot a few weeks back. I was desperately looking for my next strategy games obsession, and while I hated the game at launch and shortly after, I thought "Maybe some patches have fixed some stuff".

So I sat down. I gave it a go. I started to get used to the simplified interface and hand-holding style. Ok, it's geared towards beginners and people who didn't play the previous games. It can still be a good game. I found myself starting to open up to it and enjoy.

....and then it hit me....


The game is still a steaming pile of shit. More specifically, the AI is, without question, some of the WORST, most nonsensical garbage I've ever seen. It doesn't behave rationally, realistically, intelligently, or coherently. In all, I sunk nearly 10 hours into my latest game, and wish I hadn't have invested more than 2.

I could go on a length and give very specific examples, but I doubt anyone really cares or is reading. Suffice to say, on the THIRD HIGHEST DIFFICULTY setting, the AI was an utter and complete joke.

-'Friendly' civs would all of the sudden declare war, and then ask for peace a couple turns later, without so much as TRYING to attack.

-Immediately after war with some Civs, or relations would be "friendly". Literally...the NEXT TURN.

-And the absolute worst: I would be declared war on, and have several cities COMPLETELY UNDEFENDED. The attacking civ's units would enter the screen, move around the periphery of my cities, and never actually attack. All the while my little garrisoned "archers" whittle away at them while they nonsensically move about like spastic ants on the edges of my cities. This is on the THIRD highest difficulty setting as well.

Totally unacceptable.

It's pretty, it's streamlined, and it's fun to look at. As an actual strategy game, it's a miserable failure. Totally inexcusable now as well after a year and half worth of patches.

Right on. I can't fathom how anyone could like Civ 5. The AI is so bad you basically just hit end turn until you win. Then again I guess there are some people that still defend MOO3 to this day, lol.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Right on. I can't fathom how anyone could like Civ 5. The AI is so bad you basically just hit end turn until you win. Then again I guess there are some people that still defend MOO3 to this day, lol.

Yea, I just don't get the shit people pass as games sometimes.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

All the haters need to go try CivNiGHTS or Vanilla Enhanced.

 

[MrDuma]

Civ 5 is that game that you say hey i have 1-2 hours free; let me play a little civ;
and then surprise surprise; it is your mother going to work in the morning and saying to go to bad and that computers are ruining you life;

 

[thejunglegod]

Civ is always going to be good, right form the first part to the most recent, ive never had any complaints.

Ohh and i remember once when i was reheating rice on the stove and decided to play a "quick" game of Civ IV against the AI and only realising after 3 hours that everything had burnt to a carbon mess. Couldve easily been killed that day. Damn that Civ is addictive.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Well, after owning Ghenghis Khan for about 4000 years, he wiped me in 10 turns because he beat me to the modern era. Fml.

 

[festa_freak]

I also just started playing another game of Civ V this week. I hadn't played it since the month it came out. I put 40 hours into it previously.

I think it is a lot better now. I still don't like the simpleness of the happiness system though.

One of my biggest complaint of the first one was they wouldn't embark their units. The enemy had a TON of land units on their continent but wouldn't attack me, we were at war. I tried to attack his land but it was impenetrable.

In my game right now I don't think they can embark yet, they only have galleys. I am on warlord difficulty I think.

In all it is fun though. The AI was nice and aggressive and took one of my cities but I battled back and took it back and now they are trying to appease my anger with gifts. I refused at first but then thought, hmm, lets add a city to his gift list. I got a free city! Then wiped him out about an hour later. MUUAHAHAHAAAA.

 

[Maximilian]

Ach i gave it another shot myself upon reading this thread... its improved quite a bit since release, still glad i only paid £6 for it though. Performance has improved significantly from barely being able to play a standard size map with a few AI's to playing a huge map with 9 AI's isnt that slow at all.

The AI as has already been mentioned is garbage though :thumbsdown: My interaction with arabia at one point went like this:

Arabia: We are tired of your shit, WAR!
Me: You will pay for this in time!
*15-20 turns later, no arabian units show up and nothing much happens*
Arabia: We surrender! Take 1500 gold, 30 GPT, some incense and a horse!!
Me: ...

 

[bentheman939]

My experience with 5, besides the demonstrably terrible AI, has been that the fundamental game mechanics are poorly conceived.

-Global happiness is gamey, and is a totally artificial barrier to controlling empire size.

-1 unit per square is extremely annoying. I hate shuffling around 50 units because I am trying to move a worker somewhere. Also, 1upt forces production to be de-emphasized, which means tile yields tend to be smaller (homogenizing cities and reducing specialization, really fun elements of Civ4), and making units obsolete before they are finished building.

-Great people are a waste of time, instead of game changers.

-City States are just silly. You trade gold for a bonus. Yay.

This list could go on forever. Civ5 is just boring. Everything in it is gamey, gold based, and it is the first Civ game I can beat on emperor consistently.

Sid lost some of my respect when Facebook became his primary platform. If there is a Civ6, I hope its fun again. Get Soren Johnson back!

 

[Sulaco]

My experience with 5, besides the demonstrably terrible AI, has been that the fundamental game mechanics are poorly conceived.

-Global happiness is gamey, and is a totally artificial barrier to controlling empire size.

-1 unit per square is extremely annoying. I hate shuffling around 50 units because I am trying to move a worker somewhere. Also, 1upt forces production to be de-emphasized, which means tile yields tend to be smaller (homogenizing cities and reducing specialization, really fun elements of Civ4), and making units obsolete before they are finished building.

-Great people are a waste of time, instead of game changers.

-City States are just silly. You trade gold for a bonus. Yay.

This list could go on forever. Civ5 is just boring. Everything in it is gamey, gold based, and it is the first Civ game I can beat on emperor consistently.

Sid lost some of my respect when Facebook became his primary platform. If there is a Civ6, I hope its fun again. Get Soren Johnson back!

This x1000.

City States are a prime example for me. When I first heard about them, I thought it might be a new twist and a way to increase depth.

Yeah, not so much. One of the "gamiest", simplest mechanics possible. "Durrr...let's appeal to the lowest common denominator".

Then you play a Paradox game, that while it might take you an evening or two to grasp, and look nowhere near as pretty, it actually rewards you with, oh I dunno, actual, functional strategy and a working AI.

 

[bentheman939]

This x1000.
Then you play a Paradox game, that while it might take you an evening or two to grasp, and look nowhere near as pretty, it actually rewards you with, oh I dunno, actual, functional strategy and a working AI.

I've sunk 200 hours into Crusader Kings 2 I know what you mean.

 

[micrometers]

the problem with civ 3 on up was that they tried to make it too realistic.

The biggest thing was changing the multiple stacked unit kill. I guess this is more realistic but it also makes battles take forever. The stacked unit death in Civ2 kept the endgame somewhat manageable.

Also, they changed how air units worked.

This was a disaster as well. In Civ 4 and 5, I do not use air units. In Civ 2 I would regularly use them.

Civ 5 tried to fix balance by creating 1u1t.

That is a fantastic idea IMO. But they did it wrong. They didn't create a meaningful unit cap. Also, the AI doesn't know how to use it. So it just becomes an annoying way to manage the endless flow of units in the endgame.

The best they could do IMO is simply to go back to the stacked unit kill like in Civ 2.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

This x1000.

City States are a prime example for me. When I first heard about them, I thought it might be a new twist and a way to increase depth.

Yeah, not so much. One of the "gamiest", simplest mechanics possible. "Durrr...let's appeal to the lowest common denominator".

Then you play a Paradox game, that while it might take you an evening or two to grasp, and look nowhere near as pretty, it actually rewards you with, oh I dunno, actual, functional strategy and a working AI.

Thanks for the info/"Civ5 status update"
I've been wondering if I should grab civ 5 on a sale just to check it out. Figured after all this time the AI is probably better than at launch. And I've been way too addicted to Paradox games lately! I don't play much, but after getting the games last fall I have basically not played anything but EU3 and some crusader kings 2 since the new year!

Might as well not look at other games since I'll just play EU3 anyway Makes me feel kinda bad though. Doesn't sound like civ 5 is worth my time, maybe I should start a civ 4 games and see if that can grab me.

 

[Anteaus]

The best they could do IMO is simply to go back to the stacked unit kill like in Civ 2.

I think many of the the opinions that people have of V, good and bad, are generally well founded, fun factor not withstanding (some people find the game great fun in spite of criticisms). I think eliminating the unit stack and going to a hex based map were the major redeeming qualities of V. City versus unit combat definitely needs to be revisited for the next major releases, but the new combat style is a great improvement.

If I had one bad thing to say about the new hex system is that the hexes are too big. There should have been 4 times as many hexes to cover the same area. The unit strategy would have been greatly enhanced and combat against cities (which could cover more than one hex) would be more accessable. The way I see it, map movement is way too coarse and limits the overall flow of units. The side affect is limited overall strategy. Perhaps this is do to performance limitations, but I wish we had more hex resolution.

 

[HydroSqueegee]

has anyone played the Civilization Call to Power games back in the day? they handeled combat well. you could stack so many units and they would attack all together. you had your ranged units in the back, flankers on the side and grunts in the front. it was pretty good.

 

[gothamhunter]

Meh, I think it's fun and don't worry too much about the $7.50 I spent on a game that can keep me entertained for an extremely long time.

 

[Kadarin]

I'd like to see a Civ 4 game with hex tiles... That would be interesting.

 

[micrometers]

I think many of the the opinions that people have of V, good and bad, are generally well founded, fun factor not withstanding (some people find the game great fun in spite of criticisms). I think eliminating the unit stack and going to a hex based map were the major redeeming qualities of V. City versus unit combat definitely needs to be revisited for the next major releases, but the new combat style is a great improvement.

If I had one bad thing to say about the new hex system is that the hexes are too big. There should have been 4 times as many hexes to cover the same area. The unit strategy would have been greatly enhanced and combat against cities (which could cover more than one hex) would be more accessable. The way I see it, map movement is way too coarse and limits the overall flow of units. The side affect is limited overall strategy. Perhaps this is do to performance limitations, but I wish we had more hex resolution.

the hex system and 1 unit 1 tile is a fantastic system.

But the AI cannot fully utilize the system. Unless there were some revolution in AI, it just does not work.

It would work great for an MP match. But this is Civ we're talking about. It's not MP.

Really, AI shouldn't be that hard to program. It's kind of a wonder why they didn't devote more resources to such an important aspect of the game.

Also, they need a harder limit on the number of units. Mid to late game quickly becomes an overwhelming shuffle.

 

[QuantumPion]

I still never understood the complaint against stacks of doom other than "the AI beat me therefore it sucks". If you get killed by a stack of doom its either because you failed at diplomacy to keep key nations friendly or you were trying to go pure space race with 1 unit garrison only and surprised when an aggressive AI comes a 'knockin.

Other than that, fighting stacks of doom is strategic and fun. You have to lure them to favorible territory, soften up with siege units, and attack with good counter units. It's only a problem if you are playing above your difficulty level where it becomes unmanagable to defend against. Again, the problem isn't SoD, it's that you aren't playing optimally and got beat. The AI in Civ4 is about as good as a TBS AI as I've ever seen. It is predictable and consistent and makes the game fun.

 

[shurato]

I've played all the Civilizations since #1 on DOS. I held off on getting Civ V because of all the hateraid going on about it but decided to get it not too long ago because I heard it has improved since a few patches. I gotta admit the AI is pretty much retarded but the gameplay itself is not so bad and the game overall is entertaining.

The 1 unit per hexagon tile limitation actually poses some good strategic value never before experienced in Civ. The "stack of doom" was kinda of rediculous if I think about it.
Some people are going to hate it. Some people are going to love it. I tend to fall in between and like it but not love it. The expansion might make this game great though. We shall see.

 

[Sulaco]

As far as "Stacks of Doom" are concerned...

I really like what Paradox does in many of their games. That is, allow as many units as you want in any tile (or in Paradox's case, province), but set each tile/province with a realistic "max supported units" value. However many units you are over the limit determines your turn-by-turn attrition rate.

So if your stack of 60,000 troops is sitting idly in a tile/province that can only support a fraction of that, you're going to suffer some pretty massive attrition turn by turn.

THAT is something I would like to see the Civ series implement intelligently. Just putting caps on the number of units that can even ENTER the same square is just silly and oversimplifying the real issue.

 

[bentheman939]

I still never understood the complaint against stacks of doom other than "the AI beat me therefore it sucks". If you get killed by a stack of doom its either because you failed at diplomacy to keep key nations friendly or you were trying to go pure space race with 1 unit garrison only and surprised when an aggressive AI comes a 'knockin.

There are many problems with the 'stack of doom'. It gives enormous advantage to the one who happens to attack first, it negates all strategy wrt positioning and tactics, it greatly favours the person who declares war... there are volumes written on this. However, is the cure worse than the disease?

The scale of civ is just completely inappropriate for a hex based strategy game like Panzer General. We have archers firing over a hex, which takes 50 years to walk across. When stacks of doom fight, I could see some kind of zoom-in where 1upt is used to manoeuvre units for that particular battle, but it makes no sense on a world map scale. I can see the reasoning they used - 'let's put a strategy game inside our strategy game to make way more strategy'.

As far as "Stacks of Doom" are concerned...

I really like what Paradox does in many of their games. That is, allow as many units as you want in any tile (or in Paradox's case, province), but set each tile/province with a realistic "max supported units" value. However many units you are over the limit determines your turn-by-turn attrition rate.

So if your stack of 60,000 troops is sitting idly in a tile/province that can only support a fraction of that, you're going to suffer some pretty massive attrition turn by turn.

THAT is something I would like to see the Civ series implement intelligently. Just putting caps on the number of units that can even ENTER the same square is just silly and oversimplifying the real issue.

I completely agree. Some kind of logical maximum unit count per tile unless you want attrition would make way more sense. Obviously, if an entire city or mountain can fit on a tile, more than 1 archer could as well.

Maybe stacks could function as armies as well, where they take penalties for being too large. Generals would have a hard time directing enormous armies before the radio was invented, for example. Maybe different unit types should get different terrain bonuses. All that needs to happen is stacks need to be incentivised to split up. 1upt is the reductio ad absurdum of this idea. Even something simple like allowing non-combatants (workers, settlers, caravans etc) to stack would greatly reduce the logistical nightmare this game creates.

 

[QuantumPion]

There are many problems with the 'stack of doom'. It gives enormous advantage to the one who happens to attack first, it negates all strategy wrt positioning and tactics, it greatly favours the person who declares war... there are volumes written on this. However, is the cure worse than the disease?

The attacker has the initiative. That is not a drawback of gameplay, that is reality in ANY strategy game and in real life. Yes, there ARE volumes written on this. Such as Sun Tzu's the Art of War, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, etc, etc, etc...

If you are on the defensive, you either need to pro-actively attack his stack to weaken it, or hope your defensive stack has the right counter units to hold out.