Is it just me, or is CIV V not really very good?

[MxM]

It's pretty obvious that there are serious balance issues—so many that people literally stumble upon easy-win strategies (note the plural, if you please). Calling those design problems "exploits" sounds delusional. Yeah, they'll probably get fixed sooner or later, but how about not putting the blame on people who bought the unfinished product?

"An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or design flaw by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

Source: wikipedia

[binTravkin]

Yes, MxM, that's why for example barb farming as Bismarck is a clear exploit.
It gives you so much power it basically decides the game.
Or you think Firaxis intentionally had one civ have trait that wins or halfway-wins the game for them?

Same goes for no-happiness-all-tradingposts exploit mentioned here before - do you really think Firaxis wanted you to skip their system for balancing too much expansion (happiness) building just trading posts and purchasing most things you need with gold?

[notyoueither]

Rah, I had all the things you mentioned, except CS, factored in.
25-35 happiness is what you going to get per city.
With that piety thing -20% unhappiness, you can get it past 40.
Basically, what I am saying is that the achievable happiness amount per city is smaller than the maximum possible worker count given the new radius. And then on top of workers you could also have specialists..

I don't need practice, this is cold hard math I am using.
Perhaps I have overlooked something and I am not factoring in CS, but it does seem that the maximum achievable happiness per city shouldn't be that low.

Why would every city reach the maximum possible population?

Perhaps smaller centres produce the things that make a few super-cities possible?

[binTravkin]

nye - if a player wishes so, he/she should be able to grow cities to those full 37(?) tiles available now, plus some specialists.
Currently it is only possible if you have a small amount of cities and are trading in luxury resources.
Note that the numbers I gave above is for late game ideal case whereas cities are only founded next to unique luxuries (ones you don't have yet) and you have all the luxuries, all the buildings and the social policies adding to happiness.
This means that if you don't emphasize happiness heavily or for some reason can't collect all the luxury resources, your cities are going to be even smaller.

I am arguing about this because I find this 3-tile radius city potential amazing.
I know there were mods for this in CIV 4 too but that seemed kind of out of place there since the game was built around 2-tile radiuses.
As of now you can't get near to fulfilling this potential unless you work on that since the start of the game, possibly sacrificing many other things.

[Modo44]

"An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or design flaw by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

Come on. This is a travesty when a game is so thoroughly unbalanced. Every other valid strategy suddenly becomes an exploit. It's like saying: "Here, take this open-world game, but make sure to only actually use 10% of the presented possibilities, or you'll break stuff."

[MxM]

Come on. This is a travesty when a game is so thoroughly unbalanced. Every other valid strategy suddenly becomes an exploit. It's like saying: "Here, take this open-world game, but make sure to only actually use 10% of the presented possibilities, or you'll break stuff."

The only question is if this is intended consequences of designers or not. I actually think that for SP part, some of the imbalances are intended. Part of the game is figuring out the best civilizations for you playstyle, so they are imbalanced by design (in a similar way wonders are not balanced, technologies are not balanced). In short, if everything was absolutely balanced, there would be no Civ game.

Unfortunately, for those who likes MP, that translates in unfair MP game. This is un-intended, though quite predictable consequence. Most games do not translate well from SP to MP, because those are just very different playstyles and have different goals. The good games that excels significantly in both SP and MP have essentially two parts, significanly different parts, one SP, another MP. Look for example on Starcraft II - Single player campaign has significantly more units, upgrades are handled completely different, you can hire mercenaries, you have "hero" units and so on. Non of this present in MP game.

Unfortunately for MP players, civ series was never focused and probably never will be focused on MP, the same way Starcraft is. Part of it is simply because turn based strategy games are not good MP games, and part of it tradition. So, there will be always those unexpected exploits in MP in Civ series. If you look for good, fair, balanced MP experience you should be playing RTS, not Civ.

[binTravkin]

CIV is less for MP than SC, true, but still the MP element is considerable and for balance it is the deciding since playing against AI is imbalanced in it's own right.

[MxM]

CIV is less for MP than SC, true, but still the MP element is considerable and for balance it is the deciding since playing against AI is imbalanced in it's own right.

The design for MP should be different - this is as simple as that. And in the same way as SP decisions may reflect negatively on MP gameplay, it may happen in reverse as well - if the game is now optimized for MP, then SP portion will suffer. I, personally, do not want that. And there are much, much more SP players (who predominantly plays SP) than there are MP players in civ series. This is why I think it is BAD to focus on imbalances that creates problem for MP part of the game. Fixing those most probably remove fun from SP portion of the game.

Unless there is a clear cut separation of rules of SP and MP (as in Starcraft), I am against changes to make MP more balanced for the price of SP game fun. And Civ V does not have this separation. So, here we go...

[MRT144]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=385621

Another example of what seems like an exploit.

[kmj]

It's very streamlined.
...
So time for me to sleep now (accursed OMT syndrome) - this post was mostly to check whether my account still works and my avatar refresh looks ok.

I hadn't been here in about 8 or 9 years, and somehow I remembered my username and password... and my account still works too! (or I'm hallucinating) I don't quite know where "prince" puts me, though.

To make this slightly on topic: I think the game is good at its core. I didn't play enough Civ IV, only a few weeks when it first came out, to really miss the Civ IV innovations that Civ V leaves behind. I think you're right, "streamlined" seems like a good word. I'm digging the social policies, the interface, and the new element to diplomacy that city states add. I do wish perhaps the AI were better at tactics, and there are some weird "features" and bugs, but such is life. I wish the civilopedia were better and I hope the wiki gets fleshed out. None of this has been annoying enough to overcome OMT. Once I get the science victory, I'll have beaten it each way at least once, and maybe then I can get back to my life. Or maybe I'll kick it up to emperor ... or whatever is after king.

[OzWiz]

It is obviously easy to confuse an expressed opinion as an invitation to debate. However, arguing indicates to me that you simply don't understand what the writer is saying; or worse you don't feel he has a right to express his opinion without "correction".

Many are finding the Civ V experience unsatisfactory, and the reasons are there to see in their posts. This is a simple fact.

[Crossfire]

Can you imagine, as a game designer, looking that this finished product, then looking at CivIV and thinking that you had done a good job? Somewhere some serious sacrifices were made and it really shows. I am very disappointed and will probably go back to IV soon. I have a feeling that IV will remain the pinnacle of strategy gaming for at least another generation. Even with exploits fixed, it just seems a little empty in comparison. I wish more companies were like Blizzard and actually waited until they had a finished product before releasing it.

[AeonOfTime]

I think a positive post is required amidst all this complaining.

I have been playing Civilization since Civ I, and loved every iteration of it. I have played it in many different ways, from casual games without putting much thought into my actions to the hardcore turn-based micromanagement games complete with demographics spreadsheets every 10 turns (and later compiled into graphs).

The moment I started playing Civ 5, I realized it is not the "better Civ 4" I was expecting. It is a new look at the Civilization core concept, which was already hinted at with the change to a HEX map (never seen before in the series). I think that is the key issue for complaints here: you will have trouble enjoying the game if you want to play it like Civ 4. My initial reaction to unit stacking was genuine shock, until I figured out that a single unit in Civ 5 has more "value" than a single unit in Civ 4. If you can manage to wrap your mind around the new game system it can give you the same just one more turn effect than the other version had/have.

I especially like the early game, I think they managed to make the initial exploration and barbarian combat a lot more immersive and enjoyable. Also, not having to build transport ships to ferry troops around? Pure win in my book. Of course it is not as advanced yet as Civ 4 is now, Civ 5 is more or less starting from scratch. I am eager to see how it will evolve.

All right, enough talk - I just started a game as Bismark and want to see how useful his bonus can be in the early game with raging barbarians

[OzWiz]

I too love the hex maps and the 1upt.

It's only the unbalanced, half-finished, moronified aspects of the game that I dislike.

As a Civ, Civ 2, Civ 3 and Civ 4 player that disappoints me.

[Hauptman]

This is the first Civ game I did not run out and buy on release. The threads I've been reading make me think that was a wise descision. Makes me sad panda.