So what exactly is the beef with Civ V?

[Al B. Sure!]

I bought it (even though Oerdin is supposed to have paid for my copy, lying SOB ) with Gods and Kings and I'm not understanding what the hate is about. The flaws in the game are flaws in the Civ series in general. The customization of social policies and religion is well beyond what was in previous iterations of Civ and makes the Civs more unique from game to game than previously. For the first time in Civ, one unit per tile actually makes formations relevant and offers the possibility for terrain chokepoints, although having to move garrisoned units out when building a new unit and some silly logjams with allied or non-hostile units can make this feature annoying.

Really, aside from one unit per tile which is a mixed bag with the negatives really being just minor nuisances, Civ V is pretty much still Civ.

All of you got your panties in wads cause of what exactly? Typical negative fanboy freak outs over the smallest changes?

[giblets]

This is not the Civ 5 forum.

[Hauldren Collider]

The game is ****ing broken, Alby. Here's an in depth reason why: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

These are not minor gripes. These are game breaking flaws.

[giblets]

Yeah, the AI is a real game killer. At least with the "stacks of doom" in previous versions of civ the AI could sometimes threaten a city.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's not just the AI, it's the return of infinite city spam, horrible balance and nonexistant multiplayer.

[Wiglaf]

I think there are six fundamental flaws:

1) There are numerous very gay gameplay mechanics, and they all have very gay names. Intrigue and social policies are especially gay, gay all the way, as has been noted at length by the New York Times in their infamous article, "For Civilization Fans, New Sequel Brings Gay Game Mechanics, Even Faggier Social Policies."

2) The AI poses no tactical threat because it cannot understand 1UPT, meaning you are never in any military risk. What is cute about this is the strategic AI does not realize the tactical AI is incompetent, so the strategic AI still bullies you and declares war as if this will intimidate you. Jon Shafer, noted idiot, went ahead with 1UPT anyway because Panzer General. If you have any questions, the answer is always Panzer General.

3) The multiplayer does not work very often, and many features, including map DLCs and Espionage, are simply absent even if you manage to get it to function. It is as if the designers realized at 8 PM the night before the game was due that they forgot to add a multiplayer component, so they copy/pasted the multiplayer code from Panzer General, which must be imitated when all else fails, because Panzer General.

4) Global happiness makes it too easy to expand, as noted in that link above, since there is now no more unhealthiness and there are tons of happiness city states, religious features, and buildings that make it easy to raise your global empire happiness. No effort was made to balance any of these numerous ways to increase global happiness. Additionally, in another nod by Firaxis to incoherence and incomprehensibility, for some inexplicable reason, your entire empire is either happy, or it is not. Your border city that has been ravaged by rape, war, incest, Racism, Judaism, Islam, the Mongols, and barbarians is always going to be just as happy --- no more, no less --- as your pristine capital full of stadiums and pornography, because Panzer General.

5) The game is boring.

6) Economy and land management are non-factors, when they were all important in Civ4. It is almost always the right play to build endless trading posts, spam cities everywhere, and abuse maritime city states for food. They are nerfed in a patch but not much.

[SlowwHand]

It's not Civ II MP, just improved. All Civ II needed was tweaks and better graphics as they evolved. Instead, they decided to just screw it all up.
Civ II was mostly just Civ I, but with MP capabilities and scenarios. They had a winner and gave it up.

[Dinner]

All they had to do was update the graphics for Civ4 BTS and maybe tinker with a few minor things but, nope, they had to throw out the whole history of civ and replace it with a poorly functioning turd because shafer likes Panzer General more than Civ. It's like the dumb **** really wanted to make a Panzer General 2 but they wouldn't let him so he decided to screw up civ instead.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know what Trip was thinking using Panzer General as the model for Civ. Hell, Civ2 is much more fun than Civ5, and the AI is at least competent. Why didn't they look to MOO2, or even, heck, entrepreneur.

[Wiglaf]

All they had to do was update the graphics for Civ4 BTS and maybe tinker with a few minor things but, nope, they had to throw out the whole history of civ and replace it with a poorly functioning turd because shafer likes Panzer General more than Civ. It's like the dumb **** really wanted to make a Panzer General 2 but they wouldn't let him so he decided to screw up civ instead.

Jon Shafer is a twinky little douche.

[onodera]

And Al, social policies look good on paper, but are terrible. If you country is religious in -3000BC, then by god it will stay religious in 2000AD. I expected something like policies of SMAC, not this bull****. There was no need to completely scrap the policy system of Civ4.

[Sir Og]

And Al, social policies look good on paper, but are terrible. If you country is religious in -3000BC, then by god it will stay religious in 2000AD. I expected something like policies of SMAC, not this bull****. There was no need to completely scrap the policy system of Civ4.

QFT!

Also the interface is horrible and inadequate to handle the new stuff that was introduced (e.g 1upt) You are forced to do a **** ton of clicking and command issuing each turn wich drives me mad. It should not be so tedious to play a game.

[MikeH]

The fundamental problem is that all the decisions are boring. Robert Plomp got it right in his review IMO.

I started 2 games, never finished either. (but each time loaded up Civ IV instead, which is still great).

[MOBIUS]

As usual I took the only truly smart course of action and never bought Civ V in the first place.

[Wiglaf]

I bought it (even though Oerdin is supposed to have paid for my copy, lying SOB ) with Gods and Kings and I'm not understanding what the hate is about. The flaws in the game are flaws in the Civ series in general. The customization of social policies and religion is well beyond what was in previous iterations of Civ and makes the Civs more unique from game to game than previously. For the first time in Civ, one unit per tile actually makes formations relevant and offers the possibility for terrain chokepoints, although having to move garrisoned units out when building a new unit and some silly logjams with allied or non-hostile units can make this feature annoying.

Really, aside from one unit per tile which is a mixed bag with the negatives really being just minor nuisances, Civ V is pretty much still Civ.

All of you got your panties in wads cause of what exactly? Typical negative fanboy freak outs over the smallest changes?

YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL HOTEL TOWEL MAIDEN BANK TELLER, A TOTAL DOUCHE, FAILED MARINE, DISASTER RAPPER, MAJOR LEAGUE CLOSET CASE, AND YOU JUST WASTED $30 YOU COULD'VE SPENT ON MORE YELLOW BOARD SHORTS YOU CONDESCENDING ***!

I'm sorry I just noticed how obnoxious your post was. That will not stand. :Q: Q:Q:Q:Q: