Civ V: One to Skip?

[Calvin Vu]

No straw man attacks please

You do realize that you are comparing a game which is just released to the mod of the game that has been released for years? Do you usually expect the game to be released with perfect balance and with mods (second generation, by the way) that provide variety of gameplay and good balance as well?

You just picked on an offhanded example I gave and ignored the rest of the message, including examples on Ironworks, Oxford University, discussion on leader's traits when Civ IV came out, etc. which directly addressed the off-the-box Civ IV vs. Civ V comparison.

As I said, the way Civ V is right now, it's not fixable firaxis-wise. I suppose some modders can totally rewrite the whole thing, including removing the arbitrary and useless 1UPT constraint and somehow make the game 5 times faster at the same time. I have an Core 2 Quad and I keep falling asleep waiting for the AI to move at the end of the turn. On top of that, loading a save within the game always cause it to crash. But those quality issues are minor issues comparing to the bland over design and that's why I didn't mention them in the previous post. However, they do put a constraint on how much you can add in a mod given what is available already as slow as death.

[Ming]

arbitrary and useless 1UPT

While you are welcome to your "opinion"... to call it "arbitary" just means you haven't played many games where that is the usual.
And I don't think it's "useless". It offers a far better option than 100+ units in a single square. At least now, there's some real strategy instead of my stack is bigger than yours.

[Calvin Vu]

It's arbitrary in a strategic game where it's should be left up to the players to decide where to put the troops.
Now, before you can create 100+ stack, you must first have 100+ units. Try to do that in Civ V first before making the claim that the useless 1UPT rule is the reason why people can't have 100+ unit stacks.
And why on earth would anybody want to create 100+ units in the first place when you only need 10 to take any city and with 100 units you can attack at least 10 cities at the same time ? Straw man exaggeration is just an indication of a lack of an argument.

[Ming]

And what is your argument? You seem to simply not like it. You raise no real argument.

And you are missing my point. The new combat system is far better than who has the largest stack appoach in Civ IV. You keep calling the 1UPT rule "useless", but never say why. You have no argument.

[Wiglaf]

YOU...HAVE....NO....MARRRBLES!

[pdxsean]

Calvin, just because the conversation has been somewhat lopsided toward negativity doesn't mean that the improvements/changes in Civ V haven't been discussed.

When Civ IV came out people would be busy discussing which wonders were the coolest, which special units rocked, which leader traits were strongest in what kind of game plays.

I've seen quite a bit of this discussion. For example, I've seen people discussing whether France's culture trait is super powerful, or India's Population bonus trait, or the Persian's GA trait, Germany's barbarian trait, etc. I've discussed how awesome Arabia's UU is, China's UU and unique building, Egypt's unique building, and so forth. Some feel that these traits are too strong, some feel they are too weak. I for example could care less about the Greek's special abilities with city states, yet others would claim that is an amazingly unbalanced feature.

Now, it's like "Wonders, what wonders ? Who care about those wonders ? Units ? They're balanced so well there's not much difference playing one vs another.

I've been involved in several discussions about wonders. The Taj Mahal, Chichen Itza, and the benefits of other wonders have come up. I think we all agree that the overall benefits of wonders has been toned down. I think this is the right way to go, as they create a greater sense of balance. Wonders also have a great new power if you adopt the SP that allows for double culture in wonder-containing cities.

ironworks in Civ IV doubled the production. If you have the time to build it then after it is done, you have a cool city to crank out troops or spaceship parts and feel some special attachment to it.

Civ V has circuses, monastaries, and other special buildings that can only be built if a specific resource is available in the city radius. This can lead to specialization, and provides a greater balance than some of the super powerful special buildings in V. I do agree that the national wonders leave much to be desired in V.

When a game comes out and everybody gets excited thinking that they've found an absolute cool trick/special unit/ability that makes the strategy unbeatable and then you ask 10 people with unbeatable strategies, they respond with 8 different strategies, then it's good game design-wise. Whatever balancing problem remains in the game can easily be fixed.

I've seen tons of dicsussions on how this strategy or that is the bomb and how the game is broken because of it. Some examples: The Great Library/Civil Service slingshot, the Greece/City State strategy, the benefits and drawbacks of puppet states, steamrolling vs pacifism, numerous strategies regarding population and financial hurdles, and so on.

Although I can understand how some people don't like this game, that doesn't mean that the game is broken and that there aren't dozens of ways to play straight out of the box. TBH I think there would be more discussion of strategy and various approaches to the game if there weren't so many people complaining about the changes from Civ IV and how many features were either lost or introduced in the new game.

[Thoth]

You do realize that you are comparing a game which is just released to the mod of the game that has been released for years? Do you usually expect the game to be released with perfect balance and with mods (second generation, by the way) that provide variety of gameplay and good balance as well?

As a matter of fact, yes I do. I'm funny that way. If a company wants me to spend money on their product, it had better bloody well be a quality product not some rushed out the door piece of **** like Civ5.

[Calvin Vu]

And what is your argument? You seem to simply not like it. You raise no real argument.

And you are missing my point. The new combat system is far better than who has the largest stack appoach in Civ IV. You keep calling the 1UPT rule "useless", but never say why. You have no argument.

First, its drawbacks:
1) Clogging the landscape so I can't move units around. Ever have your military units got stuck in a long mountain pass for a dozen turns because someone you're not at war with have a scout blocking the road ? And you lose your cities at the other end because of that ? What's so good about forcing you to declare war with someone you don't want to be at war with just to get your troops moving from point A to point B?

2) Making the game drag on longer because you have to move a lot more units around even within your own territory (this has nothing to do with the new combat system, just moving your troops around where there are no fightings)

3) Making worker management even more of a pain. This, again, has nothing to do with the new combat system.

4) Making the game slower because the AIs have to take care of more units in more locations.

And for the useless part (And please remember we're discussing about whether stack should be allowed or not, not comparing Civ IV combat system with Civ V combat system where there are many other factors involved):

1) There are two key words in the term SOD: STACK and DOOM. You can prevent SOD by not allowing stack or not allowing doom, i.e. having very large number of troops. Since Civ V already makes it near impossible (or even necessary) to create large number of troops, the doom factor is already gone (even though sending 10 units to any AI city pretty much doom it, stack or without stack). so there's no need to disallow stacks as a way to prevent stack of doom.

2) The new 1UPT combat system only works reasonably well in a large open battle field but not much else since the maneuverability factor is removed from the battle. It could have been much better by allowing stack but making collateral damage a lot more serious so players will have to choose between stacking a few units together for better maneuverability at the cost of increased vulnerability or spreading them out. Again, there are no "doom" factor here and we're just talking about something like 10 units in a battle and whether people should be allowed to stack a few of them together. They can stack all 10 units together if they like but if the stack gets hit by 3, 4 archers and all units in the stack get killed, they will learn not to create that mini SOD on their own, not by any arbitrary limit on the number of units allowed in a stack.
That will increase the complexity of landscape consideration, not simplifying it.

[Calvin Vu]

Thanks for a good response. Maybe some people might find something interesting that piques my interest one of these days and I'll go back to playing again.

[Calvin Vu]

Thanks for a good response. Maybe some people might find something interesting that piques my interest one of these days and I'll go back to playing again.

Meant this for pdxsean

[Beatie]

Skipping Civ V would certainly fit with my trend of not playing all the odd numbered ones.

Civ I: Too young
Civ II: First Civ game
Civ III: Too busy, plus a lot of bad reviews
CiV IV: Have really enjoyed it

Civ V: Seems to be like Civ III from what I've been reading here. That is, it implements a lot of new ideas but lacks a quality game.

So is this one worth getting?

You voted Banana! If you don't care why ask? Or you meaby don't want to make your thoughs public? And then there is a possibility that you just like banana's I think this game can be inproved and it will be. By mods and by DLC or expansions of firaxis. I remember civ4.. it was a good game after release, but it realy gets fantastic after seccond expansion! I think firaxis want to let people learn the basics of this game for everybody. I remember a poll in the forum wich the question "what was your first civ game?" almost 90 procent voted vor CIV1 and CIV2! We need people to start from Civ5, so they make this game easier to understand and play. I think they make it more complex after the expansions.

[Ming]

First, its drawbacks:
1) Clogging the landscape so I can't move units around. Ever have your military units got stuck in a long mountain pass for a dozen turns because someone you're not at war with have a scout blocking the road ? And you lose your cities at the other end because of that ? What's so good about forcing you to declare war with someone you don't want to be at war with just to get your troops moving from point A to point B?

Gee... you actually have to plan ahead and use terrain properly... maybe even think a little bit instead of simply moving a single stack.
It makes far more sense vs Civ IV where you could move 100 units through a single square in a single turn.

2) Making the game drag on longer because you have to move a lot more units around even within your own territory (this has nothing to do with the new combat system, just moving your troops around where there are no fightings)

Gee... I guess it must be tough for you to figure out how to move all those units. And if there is no fighting, why do they have to move around every turn? I have no problem finding good places to stash units while still providing easy access to potential trouble points, and I don't HAVE to move them around EVERY turn.

3) Making worker management even more of a pain. This, again, has nothing to do with the new combat system.

By removing road spam, they have made workers less of a pain. With the new money system, it's good to even disband them when you don't need them. But I guess "some" might find it difficult to have to figure out how to manage their workers.

4) Making the game slower because the AIs have to take care of more units in more locations.

Hard to say just how much more time this actually adds, and I guess it depends a lot on your machine as well.

And for the useless part (And please remember we're discussing about whether stack should be allowed or not, not comparing Civ IV combat system with Civ V combat system where there are many other factors involved):

Sure, there are other factors, but the stacking is one of the major differences.

1) There are two key words in the term SOD: STACK and DOOM. You can prevent SOD by not allowing stack or not allowing doom, i.e. having very large number of troops. Since Civ V already makes it near impossible (or even necessary) to create large number of troops, the doom factor is already gone (even though sending 10 units to any AI city pretty much doom it, stack or without stack). so there's no need to disallow stacks as a way to prevent stack of doom.

Maybe it's near impossible or not necessary for you, but I've seen some very large armies. Are you playing at the higher levels? Sure, sending 10 units at a AI city early in the game works like a charm (may times, you need even less)... but later on, depending on your settings, you might need far more. When the AI gets on a roll, there is DOOM.

2) The new 1UPT combat system only works reasonably well in a large open battle field but not much else since the maneuverability factor is removed from the battle. It could have been much better by allowing stack but making collateral damage a lot more serious so players will have to choose between stacking a few units together for better maneuverability at the cost of increased vulnerability or spreading them out. Again, there are no "doom" factor here and we're just talking about something like 10 units in a battle and whether people should be allowed to stack a few of them together. They can stack all 10 units together if they like but if the stack gets hit by 3, 4 archers and all units in the stack get killed, they will learn not to create that mini SOD on their own, not by any arbitrary limit on the number of units allowed in a stack.
That will increase the complexity of landscape consideration, not simplifying it.

This is just your OPINION. You have yet to make any real argument on why it's "useless". All you have proven is that in your opinion, you don't like it.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

No, because if I have to suffer with it, so should you

This is a great poll choice, and I am disappointed that noone else chose it except me.

I do not think they will be able to "rescue" this one even after extensive patches... but it is a new civ and I am playing it a bit... still it is suffering and after firing up Civ IV again, I am think "why do I do this to myself" and trying to play Civ V from time to time, but I guess I am like that... just can't resist searching for an interesting game somewhere in there, as I have not lost hope quite yet... but failed to find much inside. The "one off" things like tinkering with new soical policies (not better than the old Civics btw, but at least a new concept worthy of exploring), spamming the city civs with gold to only produce world wonders and the tech tree... will see how long this holds me up...

btw Civ V just managed to crash my PC completely, reboot required, and I do not remember another progam doing this in a while...

[Calvin Vu]

You have serious reading comprehension problem, Ming. It's good that you're retired. I can't imagine what kind of damage you might do other humans if you're working on anything.
You talked as if you never ever had to reinforce some cities from other cities. How far do you plan ahead ? 100 moves ? Didn't I say I got stuck on a mountain pass for a dozen turns ? The rest of your post is similar garbage.
What a @$*(@* ?

[Louis XXIV]

To answer the original question, the game is enjoyable as is, but has some flaws. If you are concerned, however, I'd suggest waiting. After a couple of patches, you might be able to figure out if the game is for you. I also feel that, after a few months, the real popularity of the game can be decided. To decide if the game is worth pursuing, don't look at the number of negative posts, but the number of overall posts. If, after a few patches, no one is playing Civ5, don't get it. If people still are, consider it. But negative comments give a skewed impression overall (since those with something negative to say are more likely to post than people who enjoy the game).