Its been a very very long time for me

[greenday_234]

Just wondering, I haven't played any Civ since the first few weeks of Civ5. I just thought the game was terrible, unbalanced with heinous diplomacy. Can anyone tell me if this game has improved markedly since I last played? Or am I gearing up for an evening of disappointment?

[Dinner]

So far they've made improvements around the edges but Civ5 remains a disappointment to most of us. That said the new expansion pack Gods & Kings is promising a whole raft of new features which should make the game much more interesting an engaging by addressing many of the biggest complaints most people had about the game. The introduction of religion and espionage should make the game less boring by giving players more to do and more to worry about though, sadly, the crappy one unit per tile rule is still there and still remains a fundamental flaw in game design which is more or less the reason for every other flaw in the game.

[greenday_234]

I actually didn't mind the whole 1 unit per tile thing. I'm glad religion and espionage are back. My main problem with the game was that A) the AI had no idea how to use their units at all. Playing at the difficulty level I was accustom to, I was able to mow through other civs so easily it was laughable. The diplomacy was also horrible, it was so 2 dimensional, if you were really weak, then you could trade and have friends if you were even remotely strong then you'd have nothing without regard to what your relationship was before hand. It was like they took everything that was right about civ 4 and said, nahhhhh.

[Dinner]

The low production and long build times are due to 1UPT to prevent the carpet of doom where you have more units than spaces to put them, the slow build time and low production are why the game is so boring, so it all comes back to the error of 1UPt in the end. Everything which sucks in the game sucks because of compromises made to try to get 1UPT to work. It's a fundamental failure and I truly wish they'd go back to the traditional Civilization stacking methods. If they want to deal with the stack of doom issue then add a stacking penalty for stacks larger than X and institute the combined arms rules found in CTP2 so that having the correct combinations of units is more important then just stacking 50 units of what ever.

The lead designer of Civ5 should be keelhauled for his crimes against the civ franchise. That said, hexs are great but that's about the only real improvement in Civ5 over Civ4 other than longer ranged units.

[Dinner]

I actually didn't mind the whole 1 unit per tile thing. I'm glad religion and espionage are back. My main problem with the game was that A) the AI had no idea how to use their units at all.

This is a huge problem. The AI will send a large group against you but they generally just mill about walking around your cities while you pick off their key units. Then, when they're army is destroyed, you can move forward capturing one city after another because they're all left empty. The AI is the worst short coming in the game and that's what makes 1UPT so stupid because the AI isn't up to the job and will just shuffle units endlessly to no gain.

[Wiglaf]

The lead designer of Civ5 should be keelhauled for his crimes against the civ franchise

At least he's got a design tips blog now. Alt title: What not to do.

http://jonshaferondesign.com/

Jon Shafer has no shame.

[Dinner]

Honestly, the entire design of the UI in Civ5 is an embarrassment so Shafer shouldn't be giving any advice about design. Just about anything you want to do will take about 3 clicks in Civ5 where as it would take 1-2 in Civ4. That's just bad design as it's creating unnecissary clicks and worse the interface isn't remotely intuitive. It's like he just wanted to jump into writing the code of the game without even stopping to think what the finished product should look like. The best games (like the best electronics) start with a good design and the code monkeys job is just to make the behind the scenes stuff work.

[felinajosef]

Civ5 is very disappointing.

[Crustacian]

I like Civ V notwithstanding the fact you can still build frigates before the advent of gunpowder.

Re Dinner: "The AI is the worst short coming in the game and that's what makes 1UPT so stupid because the AI isn't up to the job and will just shuffle units endlessly to no gain."

~ What level are you playing on? The upper two levels should have given you a challange. Or try the Japanese Invasion of Korea on higher levels as Koreans, Mongols, or Japanese.

My vote on Civ V, and I have played avidly since the floppy disk version of I, is a resounding

The Journey itself is the thing ~ Oddyseus

[Aristos]

At least he's got a design tips blog now. Alt title: What not to do.


Jon Shafer has no shame.

Little Joni has indeed no shame at all... but you know what is even more shameful? Attitudes like the ones held by the neonazis at Civfanatics, where you cannot say a single word against Shafer without being harrassed to death by some moderators like The_Jerk... I'm glad this forum here remains an open ground of free speech. I hope it stays that way.

What everyone in complete disagreement with Shafer's "work" should do, I think, is express that disagreement everywhere, anytime... even withholding anything created by him in the future... (poor Brad Wardell, he has no idea what type of fake jewelry he acquired in the black market).

My two (hundred million) cents.

[Crustacian]

the crappy one unit per tile rule is still there and still remains a fundamental flaw in game design which is more or less the reason for every other flaw in the game.

A fundamental flaw you say?
Prove it is a flaw.
Simply because you don't like it does not make it a flaw.

That a hex is superior to a square relative to game board design has been demonstrated at least as far back by Avalon Hill games. Superior in movement relative to terrain and and number of units.

If a person prefers squares that is all well and good, I mean lets throw circles in there so that friends of circles don't feel left out.

Simply saying: "I don't like it" but adding words like flawed to add some false authority to strengthen it is what?

Prove your point or just say you don't like it and move on.

I like the 1,000 unit stackability in one square in Civ IV just fine, except it targets your stronger vets first in a major assult and keeps doing so when the attack is large enuf to go through your stacked units several times.

So guess what? I don't call that a flaw (even tho it always seemed to be a bit unporportional) I kept my best vets out of a stack which might get attacked by another huge stack, cuz I like to keep them.

It is how Civ IV is: stacked units and squares. It is good. I like hexes better and believe one unit per hex/square allows deeper levels of strategy than a who can globb together the most stuff in a stack one.

Play Risk instead of Civ V if the challenge on 1 unit per hex is too great.

Is seemingly simpler being deeper in stratigy a falicy? Then you must really be a flamer of chess.

[Crustacian]

[QUOTE=Aristos;6167757]Little Joni... I'm glad this forum here remains an open ground of free speech. I hope it stays that way.

So here is my free speech:

Your condescention type phrase is a lame attempt to elavate your status. Have you guys nothing of more substance to propound?

[Aristos]

So here is my free speech:

Your condescention type phrase is a lame attempt to elavate your status. Have you guys nothing of more substance to propound?

Well, it is obvious that you couldn't choose a better call sign... there is wise saying in Spanish that says "The thief judges by his condition". But I celebrate your use of Free Speech, something you wouldn't be able to use in other forums. Now, do you have something with substance to propose, apart from showing a clear fanboyism? If the game is perfect for you, why are you here? Go play your gem and light on your candles to "San Joni", please...

[Crustacian]

So I am happy to see my point still stands.

You actualy begrudge me merely because I prefer Civ V over Civ IV... Nothing more. I play both well, so my oppinion is worthwhile.

Your putting words in my mouth: "if the game is perfect for me" when all I said was I prefer it and why, betrays your lack of substance beyond this undisputable mindboggling fact: -----> you don't prefer Civ V.

I respect that you don't prefer Civ V.

That is all I respect about your sucker punchin the guy and his ability.

I am appropriatly here, you can't deny it. Learn something from it, if you can because....you ventured the comment

[Aristos]

So I am happy to see my point still stands.

You actualy begrudge me merely because I prefer Civ V over Civ IV... Nothing more. I play both well, so my oppinion is worthwhile.

Your putting words in my mouth: "if the game is perfect for me" when all I said was I prefer it and why, betrays your lack of substance beyond this undisputable mindboggling fact: -----> you don't prefer Civ V.

I respect that you don't prefer Civ V.

That is all I respect about your sucker punchin the guy and his ability.

I am appropriatly here, you can't deny it. Learn something from it, if you can because....you ventured the comment

I am sorry but there is nothing to learn from your comments but arrogance, hidden under some weak veil of superiority complex. I don't need to argue why I find the product of your idol broken, and how that speaks volumes of his competency; it has been done plenty of times in the past, and by others. The product is mediocre, and it is hard to dissociate product from designer, more so in this case where the designer filled his mouth pre-launch with the grandiosity of his product.

I am sorry if that bothers you, but that does not make you superior nor in a better position. In fact, defending an unknown person blindly seems more irrational than superior. I judge by facts, not by whims, and the facts, given the end product, do not help the reputation of the guy you are trying to defend. It is as simple as that.

Oh, and no, you are not "appropriatly" here.

[Crustacian]

I agree that we dissagree.

Permit please, a speculative thought that anyone<---(unrealistic generalization sorry), many not on your bandwagon or KYA are either:
a)arrogant
b)an idiot
c)little
d) a neonazi
e)jerk
f)fake

Is there any place in your conciousness for the concept of differant?

Your spanish quote refers to "projection", a thing you might look into.

[Crustacian]

wait a minute... heh heh, speaking of being here at all, arent you the guy with 5....count em 5 posts?

I guess thats really neither here nor there, but I thought it funny/curious in view of your "strong" position against civ v.

Whats your judgement or preferably oppinion, as I would hate to get arrogant again with you; on Civ, Civ II, Civ III, and the old offshoot I think by activision? I played it a lot, just can't call the name to mind. I hope you don't call me a fake and make me look it up or dig out my old copy.

Seriously though, have you an OPPINION about any of these versions of Civ that can be expressed without GF, flaming Sid Meyers? Or John Possidente, or Bill Denman? My memory is not calling any more to mind....yet.

Maybe it is the whole Activision thing this is all about. Hmmm naw.

So why are you advocating this level of effort by telling folks to:

Quoting you now here: "What everyone in complete disagreement with Shafer's "work" should do, I think, is express that disagreement everywhere, anytime... even withholding anything created by him in the future... (poor Brad Wardell, he has no idea what type of fake jewelry he acquired in the black market)."

Admitedly I am speculating over my head on this one, but it is fare to at least ask you why you advocate this? I mean you talk about a Nazi and all, now you got even me curios..."Strike down all who appose!!!!" OMG The propaganda is affecting me! JK

[Grumbold]

I don't think there's any arguing that the AI is weak. With 1 unit per tile it matters a lot more which units you put where and how you manoeuvre. Giving the AI significant advantages on the higher difficulty levels doesn't alter the fact that it needs those advantages because it's so unbelievably stupid. You only need to agree open borders and send in an observer to watch two AI nations fighting to see that.

Its total level of intelligence seems to be to automatically know each nation's overall military strength, make war/peace decisions based on their relative strength and aggression setting and then amass an army it thinks can seize a city before declaring war and sending them in. If that first wave is defeated it is incapable of much more than dribbling units toward the front.

On the positive side I do like the hex maps, the improvement in graphics, the removal of the tedious pollution process, city defence, the elimination of rail/road spam and other features. I quite happily play it on middling difficulty settings as a relaxing game. I just wouldn't choose it over Civ IV if I wanted a challenge because of its core flaws.

Nor do I enjoy what appears to be the optimal single player game play approach (I'm no Civ genius so feel free to contradict me here) of scouting the map as fast as possible, settling cities only where there are multiple luxuries in range then magically selling those luxuries to the anyone anywhere in the world who has the cash in order to accumulate the wealth to then set up research agreements or buy the loyalty of key city states (which give you more luxuries to sell.) It just seems that the whole game is driven by wealth and it's far too simple to swap luxuries for wealth with civilizations that you have no road or sea connection to, long before the historical eras when international and intercontinental trade became significant.

[Crustacian]

I don't think there's any arguing that the AI is weak. With 1 unit per tile it matters a lot more which units you put where and how you manoeuvre. Giving the AI significant advantages on the higher difficulty levels doesn't alter the fact that it needs those advantages because it's so unbelievably stupid. You only need to agree open borders and send in an observer to watch two AI nations fighting to see that.

I must agree with your observations Grumbold, and with regards the ai, I too consider them weak, Civ V not excepted. Working around this by upping dificulty level, limiting to one-three cities, and a small elite task force to accomplish military objectives offers me some greater level of challenge in the absence of a multyplayer oppertunity.

Playing Civ IV has brought me much enjoyment, yet I prefer CiV III to Civ IV, and I miss the medeivel scenario with soundtrack.

Civ V with the hex grid and one unit per hex, ranged units along with some other features to me brings Civ further along the path toward the ultimate game.


Real discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes ~ Marcel Proust