CiV (Demo) is out

[Destroid]

Everytime I try to play EU3 it seems like there is nothing really to do but watch the game play.

Funny, that's how I feel about civ... the AI doesn't really do anything and the only 'decision' is whether I should make buildings or military. Sadly even that choice is rendered obsolete since everything's so easy it doesn't matter what I do. The game consists of me tapping the space key and performing predetermined tasks wondering when it'll all end.

well aren't you edgy.

blow it out yer ass XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

I think that's a pretty good clue you are playing on too low a difficulty.

 

[MetalCraze]

- there are buildings giving +% in something too, guess Skyway cant read, well not really suprising

I've also said that they provide + to unit xp, so who can't read? The point is that they do nothing but provide bonuses to resources whatever it may be.
Why do you moan about me?

Jeez they provide nothing but primitive bonuses also in % that must mean it changes everything.

To end my first game, I nuked Seattle with a nuclear submarine while American spearmen watched in horror.

In Civ5? Really?
This game is truly an Oblivion of strategies.

 

[attackfighter]

Everytime I try to play EU3 it seems like there is nothing really to do but watch the game play.

Funny, that's how I feel about civ... the AI doesn't really do anything and the only 'decision' is whether I should make buildings or military. Sadly even that choice is rendered obsolete since everything's so easy it doesn't matter what I do. The game consists of me tapping the space key and performing predetermined tasks wondering when it'll all end.

well aren't you edgy.

blow it out yer ass XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

I think that's a pretty good clue you are playing on too low a difficulty.

The few civ 5 games I've played have been on King difficulty, and in 4 I usually played on emperor. The only way to increase the 'challenge' is to ramp it up and give the AI stupidly huge bonuses, and then the only way to beat the AI is to use exploits like the fact they never tech to aesthetics. The game is just shitty,it doesn't give the player enough choices for him to employ any sort of real strategy and yet it somehow manages to overwhelm the AI with choices forcing it to cheat to remain on equal footing with even the worst of players.

 

[MetalCraze]

What I'm saying, and ultimately what's important, is you can't stalemate your science output. You'll either have lots, or very lots of it. Never low/zero levels.

That's because devs did everything to make sure that even a fucking ape will suceed at Civ5 by randomly pressing buttons. There is nothing in the game that ever tries to penalize the player. You just grind for more and more bonuses.

 

[Destroid]

Everytime I try to play EU3 it seems like there is nothing really to do but watch the game play.

Funny, that's how I feel about civ... the AI doesn't really do anything and the only 'decision' is whether I should make buildings or military. Sadly even that choice is rendered obsolete since everything's so easy it doesn't matter what I do. The game consists of me tapping the space key and performing predetermined tasks wondering when it'll all end.

well aren't you edgy.

blow it out yer ass XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

I think that's a pretty good clue you are playing on too low a difficulty.

The few civ 5 games I've played have been on King difficulty, and in 4 I usually played on emperor. The only way to increase the 'challenge' is to ramp it up and give the AI stupidly huge bonuses, and then the only way to beat the AI is to use exploits like the fact they never tech to aesthetics. The game is just shitty,it doesn't give the player enough choices for him to employ any sort of real strategy and yet it somehow manages to overwhelm the AI with choices forcing it to cheat to remain on equal footing with even the worst of players.

You must be some kind of civ4 god, I haven't played the game exhaustively, but I know people who have I know there is no way you can just clicky click your way through emperor difficulty.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

While there's nothing as direct as a "slider" to management research, there are other ways to do so. There are Policies that focus and enhance research, there are City Buildings that add to research, and you can have individual cities focus on research (at the expense of other production). With the right technology, you can also have cities opt to "build" research, thus converting their production to research points.

Well... Civ 4 has all that, in addition to the slider. In other words, civ 5 has the same as civ 4, only less.

And the build research option is practically useless, it converts 10 or 20 % of your hammers - in a game where there are already significantly fewer hammers than in civ 4.

Anyways. In the pit of stupidity that is civfanatics, some gems surface:

Hardcore civ:
Civ I ->CivII->CivIII->CivIV

Casual civ:
Civ revolutions ->Civ V.

Civ 5 is good for what it is, I guess. The problem is that it's a civilization game for consoles.

 

[thesheeep]

Modders will fix it.

 

[Goliath]

I have bought every Civ game (including all expansions) since the release of the original Civilization game. Well, except Revolutions, but the designers themselves said that Revolutions is not meant to be a part of the "real" Civ series but a casual spin-off for consoles. It's seems that, unfortunately Civ V does indeed continue the Revolutions line and thus the old Civilization series is finally dead.

I haven't played the demo yet and based on what you guys wrote I feel absolutely no desire to do it either. IMO Civ 1 - 4 was a continuous improvement, every iteration somehow managing to make an already great game concept even better. Civ was also the only big mainstream title which resisted dumbing down/consolefaggotry, Civ IV was way more complex than all previous parts (except in the war department maybe but Civ isn't a wargame). It seems the last bastion in the world of mainstream gaming has fallen.

RIP Civ. You will be missed.

 

[Malakal]

I have bought every Civ game (including all expansions) since the release of the original Civilization game. Well, except Revolutions, but the designers themselves said that Revolutions is not meant to be a part of the "real" Civ series but a casual spin-off for consoles. It's seems that, unfortunately Civ V does indeed continue the Revolutions line and thus the old Civilization series is finally dead.

I haven't played the demo yet and based on what you guys wrote I feel absolutely no desire to do it either. IMO Civ 1 - 4 was a continuous improvement, every iteration somehow managing to make an already great game concept even better. Civ was also the only big mainstream title which resisted dumbing down/consolefaggotry, Civ IV was way more complex than all previous parts (except in the war department maybe but Civ isn't a wargame). It seems the last bastion in the world of mainstream gaming has fallen.

RIP Civ. You will be missed.

Torrent it and see for Yourself. For me Civ 5 isnt that different from Civ 4 in the feel, its different in changed techs buildigns resources and stuff. So if You memorized good teching paths and improvements placements then its all gone now. But the game play very similiar. It even looks quite the same, way different than what I expected from screenshots.

Try then state Your opinion.

 

[ChristofferC]

I've played through my first full game now. It's fun. The one big problem is the AI. It seems that they have purposefully gimped the AI in the release build to make the game easier for newbs. The preview builds had better AI, apparently. As it is now you can conquer a whole continent with 5 units without losing a single one of them, and the AI ran around with pikemen when I had giant death robots. This was on the difficulty above the middle difficulty.

When they fix the AI, it will be a pretty darn solid game. It is also a good base for future expansions.

 

[ChristofferC]

Everytime I try to play EU3 it seems like there is nothing really to do but watch the game play.

Funny, that's how I feel about civ... the AI doesn't really do anything and the only 'decision' is whether I should make buildings or military. Sadly even that choice is rendered obsolete since everything's so easy it doesn't matter what I do. The game consists of me tapping the space key and performing predetermined tasks wondering when it'll all end.

well aren't you edgy.

blow it out yer ass XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

I think that's a pretty good clue you are playing on too low a difficulty.

The few civ 5 games I've played have been on King difficulty, and in 4 I usually played on emperor. The only way to increase the 'challenge' is to ramp it up and give the AI stupidly huge bonuses, and then the only way to beat the AI is to use exploits like the fact they never tech to aesthetics. The game is just shitty,it doesn't give the player enough choices for him to employ any sort of real strategy and yet it somehow manages to overwhelm the AI with choices forcing it to cheat to remain on equal footing with even the worst of players.

You must be some kind of civ4 god, I haven't played the game exhaustively, but I know people who have I know there is no way you can just clicky click your way through emperor difficulty.

Actually, if you know what you're doing you can win pretty close to 100% of all emperor starts. Immortal and deity can be unwinnable though. I usually play on monarch because then I don't have to play "optimally" to win.

 

[Destroid]

That's what I mean though. On the higher difficulties of Civ4 you really have to work for the win, not just click end turn.

 

[Malakal]

Some more goodies:
- War has some added depth now. Units get bonuses for being near each other, with Great Generals especially giving as much as 25% so its all about forming frontlines stacking bonuses. Cities need to be sieged which is a painful and long process unless siege weapons are brought. Promotions changed and quite interesting too.
- Captured cities can be made into puppets (AI control) or annexed. Puppets dont count into the social costs (happiness probably too) and can be annexed at any time . Nice representation for some empires (like early Roman republic with its latin 'allies')
- Diplomacy better now, AI comes to propose war on enemy and You can ask for turns to prepare (like this very much), actually I think they added more options.
- They added more techs than those that were in Civ 4
- Social policies really are nice and give good enough bonuses to be worth specializing in. Endgame bonuses are, for example, 2 free techs or huge military +, golden ages etc.
- Specialists and great people almost exactly the same as in Civ 4, scientists better, artists way better (culture bombing now makes a lot of sense).
- Some new units including longswordsman (lol) and lancers.

 

[coldcrow]

On civfanatics one can see roughly the same scheme as everywhere. While mostly old forumites tend to rightfully bash the game, the opposite group consist of mostly 2009-10 joiners.

Anyways I got suckered in to buy it (liked Civ4 quite alot, even if it still is a step back from SMAC).

The issues are as follows:

- crappy, shiny, "glassy" UI which basically reads: Hey you can read my big buttons and signs even from the couch holding a controller
- more streamlining:
tile improvments are mostly +1 at start
workers do not cost food, NO mali (maluses)
religion+espionage gone
even smaller tech tree
taking away sliders
making science ONLY pop based
even more focus on commerce
retarded city-state "questing"
AI has been butchered for the release version

- iconization of everything - makes the game feel even less realistic - again think SMAC

- missed opportunity for good hexbased tactical combat - see panzer general - no suppression fire/support fire

good points:
- hexes
- zones of control
- some diplomatic options

My conclusion after a few hours of playing: fits neatly into the trend of new games - shiny presentation, but you are left with a shallow, foul taste in the mouth.

 

[poocolator]

So how do they explain cities firing arrows across 60 KM of land to hit some barbies loitering along some mountain-range?

 

[Malakal]

So how do they explain cities firing arrows across 60 KM of land to hit some barbies loitering along some mountain-range?

They dont, its 'ranged attack'. Call it skirmishers or ambushes or strategic campaign against enemies, does it matter? With this level of abstraction even dividing stats into ranged-mellee seems ridiculous.

 

[MetalCraze]

So how do they explain cities firing arrows across 60 KM of land to hit some barbies loitering along some mountain-range?

It's called streamlining man. Who would want to select which units will defend the city? As in actually defending against attacking enemies, not raping them a world away with magic long range weapons with enemies being unable to even fight back. Get on with the times - I mean jeez do you really want to play your game not twitch the win button all the time? That's so last decade.

 

[markec]

So how do they explain cities firing arrows across 60 KM of land to hit some barbies loitering along some mountain-range?

It's called streamlining man. Who would want to select which units will defend the city? As in actually defending against attacking enemies, not raping them a world away with magic long range weapons with enemies being unable to even fight back. Get on with the times - I mean jeez do you really want to play your game not twitch the win button all the time? That's so last decade.

You fool, the only reason they didnt have this in previous games was because of engine limitations.

 

[Zed]

I have bought every Civ game (including all expansions) since the release of the original Civilization game. Well, except Revolutions, but the designers themselves said that Revolutions is not meant to be a part of the "real" Civ series but a casual spin-off for consoles. It's seems that, unfortunately Civ V does indeed continue the Revolutions line and thus the old Civilization series is finally dead.

I haven't played the demo yet and based on what you guys wrote I feel absolutely no desire to do it either. IMO Civ 1 - 4 was a continuous improvement, every iteration somehow managing to make an already great game concept even better. Civ was also the only big mainstream title which resisted dumbing down/consolefaggotry, Civ IV was way more complex than all previous parts (except in the war department maybe but Civ isn't a wargame). It seems the last bastion in the world of mainstream gaming has fallen.

RIP Civ. You will be missed.

So you haven't really played any of the games you base your entire whiny bitch post on? (Rev and V)

 

[Luzur]

well i just started a new session in Civ 1 last night, so im fine now.

toodles.

 

[Mortmal]

You scared me with your comments, but its not nearly as bad as expected, its even i dare to say it, enjoyable and fun.

Its very streamlined, certainly not the complexity of victoria 2 , but theres positives with it, UI is much more convenient and they removed some of the micro like troop transports, those were uneeded chore, you dont get that on victoria 2 either.
No really its very differents from civ 4 and clearly more aimed at shorter multplayer games.
I appreciate that the cities defend themselves and you dont have to garnison anything for happiness, you build less armies but have to manage them better, and place them with more strategy than usual.

You said research is not funded, thats not true you get most of it from buildings and buildings maintenance costs really matters.
I am pleased they changed mechanisms and made a new game out of it, else why not just play civ 4.I love the new civics adn forcing choices between them.
The big negatives is they cut off things like spying and religion, undoubtly to release it as paying dlcs very soon.

 

[poocolator]

So how do they explain cities firing arrows across 60 KM of land to hit some barbies loitering along some mountain-range?

They dont, its 'ranged attack'. Call it skirmishers or ambushes or strategic campaign against enemies, does it matter? With this level of abstraction even dividing stats into ranged-mellee seems ridiculous.

I like to pretend that it's Cthulhu himself defending my cities.

 

[coldcrow]

The list goes on:

- no health/pollution
- I said that before but: ZERO negativ impact of decisions/policies - you can choose between small bonus or big one; imho that is a huge factor because negative impacts are necessary for a varied and interesting gaming experience. For example: RoA is so great, because there are negative repercussions around every corner - forgot change of shoes? ow! Got infected with rabies in the middle of the forest? Good Luck!

...

Well as you cans ee I am pretty dissappointed. It is pretty obvious that half of the missing features will eb added via DLC/exp packs and the other half through mods. What is left is a "safe" coup by firaxis netting them nice profits from retards like me who bought the game.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Am I the only person who assumes that AI is going to be shit in any strategy game? I must be, because the butthurt over the dumbass AI is strong in this thread.

I really don't see where the fun is if you aren't playing multiplayer when it comes to strategy games. Anything else is just self-indulgent masturbation.

And frankly, I think that Civ V is going to serve that purpose a lot better than any Civ game that has came out yet. Yes, the turns are shorter, things are streamlined, but this allows multiplay to move quicker and actually makes it viable to knock a game out in a few hours as opposed to a few days of walking around the house eating hot-pockets while you wait on your opponent to finish their turn.

The only full-blown stupid thing I've seen so far is the inability to rush production. All of the other complaints in this thread seem like the garden variety originalism that we always see. You guys are bitching about most of the changes without even taking into account how they actually affect the balance of play and influence the game. Civ never has and never will be a simulation. It's based on a damned [good] boardgame. Think of it in that context and you might be surprised at how decent it actually is at accomplishing what it wants to.

 

[Goliath]

I have bought every Civ game (including all expansions) since the release of the original Civilization game. Well, except Revolutions, but the designers themselves said that Revolutions is not meant to be a part of the "real" Civ series but a casual spin-off for consoles. It's seems that, unfortunately Civ V does indeed continue the Revolutions line and thus the old Civilization series is finally dead.

I haven't played the demo yet and based on what you guys wrote I feel absolutely no desire to do it either. IMO Civ 1 - 4 was a continuous improvement, every iteration somehow managing to make an already great game concept even better. Civ was also the only big mainstream title which resisted dumbing down/consolefaggotry, Civ IV was way more complex than all previous parts (except in the war department maybe but Civ isn't a wargame). It seems the last bastion in the world of mainstream gaming has fallen.

RIP Civ. You will be missed.

So you haven't really played any of the games you base your entire whiny bitch post on? (Rev and V)

I have played Revolutions (I just said I didn't buy it). I have never played Oblivion or Fallout 3 either and why should I? That's what reviews, feature lists, etc. are for. To decide whether you will like something BEFORE you buy it. Just looking at the Civ V feature list and what everyone is saying (both pro- and con) about the game makes me damn sure that it sucks, that's what my post was based on by the way.

Wait, did you just go "YOU CANN0T JUDGE A GAME BEF0R YOU PLAYED IT!!!111" on me? Have the chocolate milk kids taken over my Codex? And since when is bitching about "streamlining" wrong? Go shove your Xbox controller up your ass!