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

[Aro]

Don't have bed times at your old folks home Aro?

I'm an old man... We don't need so much sleep...

[pdxsean]

I get the feeling you haven't seen this then.

So I went and read that article, and it's the same complaints a lot of people have about the game. Through the post, I kept wondering what game he was playing...

He states in his opening sentence, that he has decided the game is broken AFTER 100 TURNS.

It appears the poster's biggest complaint is that there are city states, and that some of them provide you with food. This is only true if you make the effort, and if your neighbors haven't conquered the city states.

He complains about how opening position is very important... I disagree, in the sense that it's no more important than in previous games, and there's always a basic resource nearby. Your opening position is what you make of it.

He complains that strategic resources are super important and unbalanced. I disagree, I think there are too many strategic resources, and a vast majority of units don't require them. I also wonder how he discovered this in 100 turns, since he might have iron and horses, but no coal etc.

His complaint that there are a variety of special benefits and functions of Civs. Well, I seem to recall in IV that some civs were preferable to others. Also, I believe this is a matter of taste and game style. TBH I do believe the French have a big leg up... but if that's the case, play the French every time.

"Production is the key economic indicator." Well, if the guy has only played 100 turns he obviously hasn't seen the real economy, but this just makes me laugh and laugh. Wait until you get to the modern era and your civ collapses under it's own weight.

He doesn't like that you can't choose tiles. First off, you couldn't in IV either... second off, you CAN. It's called spending money.

Here is one of my favorite qotes: "I've played this game for maybe 5-10 hours total, and I am once again annihilating all of the AIs in the Demographics on King, more than double anyone else in every relevant category after ~110 turns. There's no point in playing on, this game is already finished."

Now, I'm not sure what "every relevant category" is in demographics, but I've crushed the competition in the opening stages of the game every time... but I've ended up losing 2 of the 3 games I've started so far when things fell apart in the late stages.

To be honest, I keep reading these complaints about the game, and I don't see any of them in my playing experience. I'm closing in on 70 hours of play (and probably 1500+ turns) and I know I still have a ton to learn about the game. Maybe I'm missing something in that I can't figure it out after a few hours.

Basically, this is exactly why *I* would say "I don't understand why people think this game is easier."

[Krill]

So I went and read that article, and it's the same complaints a lot of people have about the game. Through the post, I kept wondering what game he was playing...

Argument by innuendo, you are saying that he isn't playing the game the way you think it should be played. Completely irrelevant, he has shown how the game can be broken.

He states in his opening sentence, that he has decided the game is broken AFTER 100 TURNS.

Ditto above. The early game is broken. You don;t need to play a full game to show that.

It appears the poster's biggest complaint is that there are city states, and that some of them provide you with food. This is only true if you make the effort, and if your neighbors haven't conquered the city states.

Irrelevant conclusion. The game is broken because this is the One Right Way to grow cities (look at RAHs strat thread on how to do it). Farms and food res don't get a look in.

He complains about how opening position is very important... I disagree, in the sense that it's no more important than in previous games, and there's always a basic resource nearby. Your opening position is what you make of it.

Resources don't matter (and Nikolai has already claimed that there is always one happy resource, if you want to argue that happy res are important), but the location of city states do. And you how are you comparing C4 and C5 economic models?

He complains that strategic resources are super important and unbalanced. I disagree, I think there are too many strategic resources, and a vast majority of units don't require them. I also wonder how he discovered this in 100 turns, since he might have iron and horses, but no coal etc.

So you are claiming that iron deposits that give you 6 resources should be downgraded to give less resources? So, why should most armies be comprised of resourceless units again?

His complaint that there are a variety of special benefits and functions of Civs. Well, I seem to recall in IV that some civs were preferable to others. Also, I believe this is a matter of taste and game style. TBH I do believe the French have a big leg up... but if that's the case, play the French every time.

Irrelevant conclusion...and no comment on game balance here. You haven't addressed the argument. Strawman.

"Production is the key economic indicator." Well, if the guy has only played 100 turns he obviously hasn't seen the real economy, but this just makes me laugh and laugh. Wait until you get to the modern era and your civ collapses under it's own weight.

So, it is more efficient to spend use gold to get free food from maritime states than to work farms pre-CS (at least), work mines ot build what you need, and then work trade posts to speed up the cycle. Oh, and in the best traditions of Poly, STRAWMAN!

He doesn't like that you can't choose tiles. First off, you couldn't in IV either... second off, you CAN. It's called spending money.

Thats OK then, especially when the AI choses desert tiles in the second ring over marble in the third...and nice diversion. And technically a non sequitur. In C4, you could control how much culture a city produced much more finely than in C5, and you knew exactly how much culture was needed to get all of the next ring of tiles. Just because you got all of them doesn't mean that you had no control over it; you had the control necessary to get the entire ring. In C5, you are much more limited in the amount of culture, and have no control over which tile gets chosen, which forces you to buy the necessary tiles. Forces, not choose. There isn't a decision to make there, there is no strategy. And this should be balanced against gold to city states, buying units, buildings...buying luxes from AIs etc.

Here is one of my favorite qotes: "I've played this game for maybe 5-10 hours total, and I am once again annihilating all of the AIs in the Demographics on King, more than double anyone else in every relevant category after ~110 turns. There's no point in playing on, this game is already finished."

Now, I'm not sure what "every relevant category" is in demographics, but I've crushed the competition in the opening stages of the game every time... but I've ended up losing 2 of the 3 games I've started so far when things fell apart in the late stages.

Your not sure of what every relevent catagory is when he has this picture in his post? And you are Affirming the Consequent there, just because you screw up doesn't mean others do.

To be honest, I keep reading these complaints about the game, and I don't see any of them in my playing experience. I'm closing in on 70 hours of play and I know I still have a ton to learn about the game. Maybe I'm missing something in that I can't figure it out after a few hours.

Basically, this is exactly why *I* would say "I don't understand why people think this game is easier."

And just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Most of your post is just logical fallacies, one after another...

[pdxsean]

You asked why people would say they don't understand why people think the game is easier. I explained why I think that, by giving my opinions on the rationale you linked to.

Clearly we disagree, but that doesn't make either of our points invalid.

[Krill]

Cool, so MxM just admitted that he is a little bit thick and can't play C5

[Coeur]

Um lol... read through Krill's posts and thought them all to be massively ironic. You say "Argument by innuendo" and then proceed to do that for your entire post. For instance ""Ditto, the early game is broken. You don't need to play 100 turns to show that." You have given no reasoning here for your point, nor said why you believe it broken. Suffice to say, you're merely claiming, with no evidence...

There will always be people who don't like a game... I'm not sure what you aim to achieve by trolling on forums though? Most of the people are enjoying the game, and are thus, playing it... Most of the people who don't enjoy it... are *****ing.

Also that image...he is researching civil service!? So he hasn't even entered the medieval age... He has 2 happiness, and it seems if his population is so much higher, he has over-extended and is about to hit some trouble. SDespite having twice as much land as anyone else, he has only 1/6 as much military.... His civilisation is THE unhappiest in game as well it seems.

Also the phrase "Irrelevant conclusion" is both arrogant, and unsubstantiated. While Rah has posted a strategy based on city states, it is by no means a clear way to win everything. Especially if you intend to play multiplayer... Each state can only give it's "alliance" bonus to one individual player.

As for choosing tiles, for one, his comment was not a non sequitur... you might want to check it. But Pdx's point stands in my opinion. You can choose which tiles you get. And you have more control than in previous civ games. Consider that you can, provided you have the money, branch out three spaces in a straight line... this would take three cultural expansions, in civ4. As for what it chooses, yes, it sometimes isn't great, and a choice would be a welcome inclusion in a coming patch. But i've never felt is "deprived me" of a key resource. If I want something, I'll buy the tile, or have settled closer. If there is a choice of marble, or empty desert, it always prioritizes a resource... so your example was a little exagerated.

As it is, no one can honestly give an objective overview, not you, or myself. Because we have bought the game, and have enjoyed (or not enjoyed) it. And have also spent money on it. Which a lot of people seem to find really insulting for some reason...

If you have honestly gone through life, never having wasted £30, then you are much more careful than me, and clearly more gifted. I've spent hundreds on stuff I've liked for a few days, then abandoned, and I've never really felt the need to complain about it. I can spend £30 on a single night out....

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well tried to play it again today, Sunday and all... and well I did not manage to push myself for the 100 turns... tried to give it more time, but when I feel that I am forcing myself to play the game??? what is the point... for the time being I am going back to Civ IV ... tried to like it but I do not like how the game interacts with me to start with, which is not even the main complaint here from what I can tell... but that is what really puts me off... reading here is more fun ... not to mention other game dynamics explained by others, do not give confidence that it will be getting any better if I make myself play more, so whatever... maybe one day I will be bored enough to give this another try...

visually it is like a mush, hex clouds, metallic sea and mushy terrain, unintelligible units, annoying diplomacy (not that it is useful or anything)... the interface - whoever thought that hiding actions under menus is a good thing, needs to be fired , good design is making commands available with one click, not with menu digging. and still I feel that more of the screen estate is obstructed by the current stuff on screen than before. Not sure why, but for one you neither can zoom in so close as before nor can you zoom out.

I guess a part of the "I cannot make myself play this thing" is that I am/was still playing Civ IV, and this feels like a backwards experience... a lot backwards, honestly did not expect this. I expected at least something to entice me to play, but in the early game it is only the opposite, so well I guess I'll leave it for later.

For the early game/launch for me this is the worst civ so far... It may not be the worst for others, but for me - yes... maybe I will change my mind over the coming months, but that remains to be seen, as the poster above said - I have wasted £30 in my life before, and will do it again, but am dissapointed that this - "a one in 5 year event" feels like a waste... sure I will give it time, but it is a first one for me that it feels like waste at all... but yes, I guess there is still Civ IV to play, and maybe after a few days, weeks or months, I may feel better about this one too...

[Krill]

I've already said why the game is broken in several threads here...as does the post that I first linked to. So, what was that about evidence again?

Happiness doesn't matter, ironically enough. As you can see from that screenshot, his population is huge, and that is why he doesn't have that much happiness room left: it is all ready being used to sustain population which is what is giving him that rest of the statistical edges. Having the largest amount of happiness isn't the point of the game. Also, you don't need much military to beat the AI - it just sucks at warfare compared to the human because of 1UPT. Compare CIV to chess:

T-hawk[/URL]]Sirian's comment about how difficult 1UPT tactics are to code for an AI kind of slipped by unnoticed in this thread, but rings dead on to me. Think about chess, a similar game of front-based 1UPT tactics, but with a smaller gameboard, homogeneous unit behavior and abilities (no ranged units or promotions), and a very tightly defined objective and win condition. Chess took about four decades of research by some of the smartest programmers on the planet to match the best human players.

Also the phrase "Irrelevant conclusion" is both arrogant, and unsubstantiated. While Rah has posted a strategy based on city states, it is by no means a clear way to win everything. Especially if you intend to play multiplayer... Each state can only give it's "alliance" bonus to one individual player

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Irrelevant_Conclusion

As for choosing tiles, for one, his comment was not a non sequitur... you might want to check it. But Pdx's point stands in my opinion. You can choose which tiles you get. And you have more control than in previous civ games. Consider that you can, provided you have the money, branch out three spaces in a straight line... this would take three cultural expansions, in civ4. As for what it chooses, yes, it sometimes isn't great, and a choice would be a welcome inclusion in a coming patch. But i've never felt is "deprived me" of a key resource. If I want something, I'll buy the tile, or have settled closer. If there is a choice of marble, or empty desert, it always prioritizes a resource... so your example was a little exagerated

Forces, not choose. There isn't a decision to make there, there is no strategy. And this should be balanced against gold to city states, buying units, buildings...buying luxes from AIs etc.

Game balance question for you there...

As it is, no one can honestly give an objective overview, not you, or myself. Because we have bought the game, and have enjoyed (or not enjoyed) it. And have also spent money on it. Which a lot of people seem to find really insulting for some reason...

Almost a Red Herring...buying the game has no effect on understanding how well the game plays. Hopefully it will be fixed up in patches.

If you have honestly gone through life, never having wasted £30, then you are much more careful than me, and clearly more gifted. I've spent hundreds on stuff I've liked for a few days, then abandoned, and I've never really felt the need to complain about it. I can spend £30 on a single night out....

I wouldn't consider the £30 wasted, if the game got fixed. Reputation is important, people buy games based on previous experiences etc. Some people will just blindly play anything and not think - god knows I've done that sometimes, the occasional TF2 game is quite relaxing, even if I don't play it much anymore.

[Coeur]

In my mind the 1upt is a great thing, but as you say, it needs work. The chess analogy was a good one. What I would suggest is they work on the "range" idea... for instance. Give archers a range of 1, i.e. they can bombard (with no retaliation) a unit next to them. This stops archers firing over freaking mountains. Siege could have 2... either that, or siege 3.... It feels kind of weird to see an archer firing with the same range as a cannon.

As for the red herring. All I meant was that our views will be a little tainted by personal experience, which is fine, such is the basis of all reviews. But we can't make substantiated claims like the topic title I.e. "Civ is BAD" or "Civ is GOD."

I was surprised by Grave's comment though... I kinda like the graphics here myself, they seem so much more real, and make me think im actually running an empire. Any and all immersion I might have in civ4, was ruined as soon as a single warrior would appear on my border, except I'd highlight him. That's no mere warrior. It's a warrior with 30 spearmen, 15 tanks, 6 knights and an F-18 bomber. .... Perhaps they are all walking in single file to trick my scouts.... the cunning Bastards.

Also doesnt this strike of all single player experiences? Or was that stated in this post earlier? I'm sure on multiplayer, it should work quite well. And the removal of leader traits, is much better. There were too many leaders on civ4, which were accepted (and almost proven) to be better than others.

[USAFireFly]

It is truly AWFUL! How can people take a decent product and ruin it? Civilization V, that's how. I'm truly amazed and dismayed how awful this is. Thank you all for the warning!!!

[dregor]

It is truly AWFUL! How can people take a decent product and ruin it? Civilization V, that's how. I'm truly amazed and dismayed how awful this is. Thank you all for the warning!!!

I'm confused. Have you played it and feel it's awful, or are you thanking the boards for stopping you from playing it?

[USAFireFly]

I played the demo. I think Civ V is awful. I can't stand the look of it and how's that possible? I am already forgetting this product and sticking with the decent Civ series before V. It's that bad. I don't think kids will like it either.

[notyoueither]

I get the feeling you haven't seen this then.

And that is a fallacy of composition. Just because you are having problems with the game doesn't mean others are...

I read his first four points and stopped, because it's a load of crap.

Either they apply to all civs, or they are false.

[vladesch]

You guys need to learn a bit about the game before you criticize :P You can specify exactly which tiles are to be worked. Just open the preferences for what to focus on, then icons will appear over every square in the city's control. Click these to allocate/deallocate workers to them.

[Dinner]

The early game does seem a bit unbalanced but the game gets more in balance the further it goes. Strangely that's the exact opposite of Civ4 which starts out very well balanced but becomes more of a run away the longer you play.