List of bugs/annoying features/missing features

[Adagio]

Couldn't find another thread like this, so I'll start

Bugs:
1. Very bad AI. The AI should not still be using warriors in 1700 AD and only have 5 cities on a normal size map, where there's still a lot of room for expansion. On king level 170 AD some of the AIs still haven't built any tile improvements at all
2. City AI is weird. I had a city that was producing a wonder. On default city AI, the city was producing 7 hammers, but when I selected that it should focus on production, the city went down to 3 hammers instead
3. Worker AI is bad (sure, has been that in all Civ games, but this is the worst). I had a city with lots of farms (that I built), then I set all the workers to automate and they ran to the city to turn all farms into trading posts. As soon as the trading posts was built the workers decided to turn them back into farms
4. When I make peace with a civ and that civ gives me something per turn, I'll recieve the "Peace treaty expired" EVERY turn. Very annoying to see this message 90 times on maratho

Annoying features:
1. You know everything about tiles, when you have seen them once. I can see where the AI built their city, even though I haven't visited that place for 1000 years

Missing features:
1. World history at the end of the game
2. Hard to get a good overview over diplomacy. Was a lot easier in Civ IV
3. The advisor popups could need a "don't you ever tell me this again" button. I'd like to see everything they have to say, but I don't want to be told the same thing all the time

[sowings]

Bugs:
5. Gunships have the icon showing an attribute for "cannot take cities", so how come I just took a city with mine?!

[Proteus_MST]

Annoying features:
2. Having your half built tile improvements getting displayed on the map. While at the first glance this seems to be a nice feature, it becomes annoying because the difference between half built and full built often is too small, making you believe that you already have built a tile improvement on a certain tile, while in reality it is only half built (something that might regularly happen, for example because you have to stop work and withdraw your workers because of aproaching barbarians/enemies...in large empires it is rather easy to forget about said tile afterwards).
Maybe half built and full built tile improvements should have greater differences, to tell the one from the other more easily

Bugs
6. Other civs complaining about you expanding into their territory, although your city which has expanded its borders is separated by several tiles of ocean from their cultural borders, making any overlaps between the cultural borders of this city and their cultural borders impossible.

[Tomas1931]

Second time that I had an open border agreement with the AI. War is declared by th AI while in my territory They are not forced to return to their territory They attack Killing multiple units. In Civ IV one was returned to your own territory This is an unbalanced bug

[Zoetstofzoetje]

seems to me like it's a feature rather than a bug. if that happens to you, you'd think twice before doing OB again. wasn't it the case in civ3 that this was a feature as well?

btw, were you born in 1931??

[Tomas1931]

yes I was born 1931

[MasterDave]

Bugs: Twice now I have made a peace treaty with Hiawatha that seems to be permanent (never ends). This has screwed up my plans for a domination victory both times now...

Another bug is sometimes I get accused by another AI of betraying Sulemain. Sometimes he is not even in the game I am playing, yet I betrayed him. I am pretty sure that this message is mistakenly in the place of some other message.

[Proteus_MST]

Bugs: Twice now I have made a peace treaty with Hiawatha that seems to be permanent (never ends). This has screwed up my plans for a domination victory both times now...
...

Seems to be closely connected to the "eternal open borders"-bug that some players (including myself) experienced...
in my case I had an eternal open borders treaty with the persians...
I was able to wage war against them (via diplomatic declaration of war) but as soon as the war was over, the open borders treaty would be in force again, allowing persians to freely enter my territory without any diplomatic penalties

[sowings]

Annoying features:

3. Razed cities should not pop while they're burning.

4. Puppet cities should not build a spaceship factory, as I can't access the city to tell it to build the component anyway, and in this case, it's just a waste of aluminum.

[a.kitman]

i dont know if this is just my head playing games, but when i go for a random civ it seems like a 50% chance i get either india, french or japan. i guess if others doesnt have this its just my head.

[Fidel]

while the general idea about expendable strategic resources is good, i find one thing rather annoying. say you do not have horses or iron and purchase them from someone else. say that someone sells it to you and then declares war, cutting your supply. not only did he drain you of cash, but it also gets your units pronto below strength. i understand that there is a remote real-life justification, but from the gameplay point i find this not to be fun. unless, of course, you are japanese and do not care about such things at all.

[Ming]

The solution for that is simple... once you use the resourse to build a unit, that resourse goes down in supply permanently. You build two swordsman when you have a two iron resource, and that's it... no more iron. You sell a resources, it's gone... (I would expect you would be able to get a lot more money if you actually trade one) It only makes sense. Once you use the resource to build something, why should a unit go down in strength because somebody pilliges a mine, it's ALREADY BUILT

However, if they were to shift to a model like this, they would have to make resourses a little move available on the map.

On another note, I'm getting sick and tired of not haveing a key resourse anywhere near me even when I have a large empire. The last 5 or so games I"ve played, I haven't had iron early (had to get it from a city state), and no alum and no oil. Yet all my key opponents had multiple squares of all the strategic resourses. It gets old real quick

[Proteus_MST]

I never was in this situation,
but doesn´t the lack of strategic resources just prevent,
that you can build new units that require this resource,
but doesn´t affect any of your units already built?

In this case it only prevents your replacement of units you lost in battle..
And, well, I don´t see a problem there...if you were too slow to acquire strategic resources and only have dubious friend that backstab you as soon as they can to supply them to you, you obviously need to be punished.
And don´t forget that it also could vbe the other way round, i.e. the AI player/s don´t have access to strategic resources you possess and therefore not being able to build advanced units

[notyoueither]

When you lose resources and go below the number of the resource per the number of those units you have, your units that need that resource suffer a combat penalty (-33% or 50% from what I've seen).

[Ming]

Yep... and I never really understood that one... Granted, the current system allows you to disband units so that you can build different units with a resourse... such as disband a swordsman than build a frigate... but I'd be more than willing to give that up to avoid the silly penality. Once you've built a unit... IT'S BUILT!

(Yeah, I know one could argue that you need the resourse to upkeep the unit and refresh it after combat, but what the heck... I'm on a soap box and I'm not getting off of it on this one )

[Proteus_MST]

When you lose resources and go below the number of the resource per the number of those units you have, your units that need that resource suffer a combat penalty (-33% or 50% from what I've seen).

Ah O.K., good to know...
and one reason more to strive to be the guy with the resources instead of being dependant on AI supplies

[Ming]

True enough. With a bunch of city states, resourses are never much of a problem... that is, until they start getting beat up and they are your only source

[Ijuin]

A possible alternative might be that if you lack the resource, then units requiring it can not heal, rather than just giving them an atk penalty.

[Ming]

Not being able to heal is a death sentence.... The minus is better, but I would prefer neither

[Fidel]

Anything would be better than combat penalty. Even increased maintenance.

[Adagio]

In this case it only prevents your replacement of units you lost in battle..
And, well, I don´t see a problem there...if you were too slow to acquire strategic resources and only have dubious friend that backstab you as soon as they can to supply them to you, you obviously need to be punished.

In my last game I played as Rome (where all their special units needs iron), was playing on a large continents map. On the continent I landed on there was only one small source of iron (enough for 2 units), which was placed just north of a city state and south of the capital of one of the AIs on the continent. I managed just in time to build a city nearby and buy the tiles needed to get there, making the AI a bit angry both for building cities near and for buying land
So I didn't get much use of my special units
But was interesting still, as the AI didn't have any iron at all