Revamp of Civilisation = CIV V

[Deleted]

Hey,

So i wanted to start playing civ 5, my friends said, that it is awesome, but when i more learn more of it, then more i do not like it.

It even comes to hate sometimes.

Intead of managing your cities like proper civilisation, they have manage to change to a board game.

Things i am against:

- no a possibility to gather few units on same title

- no sea transport etc.

- cities defend themself.

- Instead of managing armies/armadas you are only managing couple of unites.

- Since you do not have whole armies like hundrets of units it doesn't feel like managing like an empire only like a colonization or commanding a small country. But it doesn't feel like being a great king.

I remember in call to power or other civilisations you have the power to command hundrets of units. It took me a lot of time to take a one enemy city. He put like 20 units in one city. It took like 50 unites to conquer it.

Some may said repetetive but that kind of thing make you fill if you commanded a empire. Huge clashes with huge enemies.

For me civilisation was always about it.

Not about managing single units, small armies but the huge armies.

Yes, i love the strategy feeling about it, but what i love about strategy in the previous civ games, was the strategy on macro scale commanding the empire, not a single units.

If would want to play small unites commanding strategy game, i would go and play rome total war.

So what do you think ?

I cannot decide, that is why i am asking.

I do not want to waste my money on something that would i hate after a while of gameplay.

one other thing, I think they mistunderstood user friendly with noob friendly.

I found civilisation very user friendly, but maybe it is just me.

For me that those changes in civ V are noob friendly aka dumbing down the game.

Have a nice day

Sew

[Tradewind]

wow, people still use the word "noob" and actually try to be taken seriously?

Oh well, sucks you didn't like it I guess.

[jackofwind]

With the Gods and Kings expansion Civilization 5 is the best the series has ever been - difficult, streamlined in the right places, and with FAR more tactical warfare than any other iteration. Stacking units haven't been around for awhile now and the game is much better for it, but if you care so much then go back to the cluttered mess that is Civ 3.

Civ 5 on the hardest difficulty setting (8) is incredibly difficult, and I would wager a large sum that it would outclass your abilities.

[SirRobin]

Meh... Its CivV, which was a pretty big reboot.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/14/jo...s-will-differ/

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/12/ci...ch-jon-shafer/

[Deleted]

wow, people still use the word "noob" and actually try to be taken seriously?

Oh well, sucks you didn't like it I guess.

What is the difference, what words do i use

---------- Post added 2013-04-24 at 10:03 PM ----------

With the Gods and Kings expansion Civilization 5 is the best the series has ever been - difficult, streamlined in the right places, and with FAR more tactical warfare than any other iteration. Stacking units haven't been around for awhile now and the game is much better for it, but if you care so much then go back to the cluttered mess that is Civ 3.

Civ 5 on the hardest difficulty setting (8) is incredibly difficult, and I would wager a large sum that it would outclass your abilities.

I think you didn't played civ 4 which is totally love, i personally hate civ 3, but i also love civ 2.

Civ 4 added new things but also didn't change the old ways. Civilisation was the first game i ever played.

I do not mind adding new things, i am against totally changing the gameplay.

I do not play civ for difficulty, i play it ,for building great empires, that what i play all civ's including alpha centurii, and call to power series.

The same i play starcraft 2, i just play it, it doesn't matter what skill i have or if i win or lose.

Stacking units was awesome, and still is, you can stack workers on one tile, improving the speed of it being completed.

In civ 4, i always moved an army of 20 units and march on the enemy. That is the true feeling of being the great empire.

Civ 5 have some great elements but it also have so weak one.

Oh well it is back with civ 4 for me.

[N-7]

I just hate the fact that on levels harder than King, the AI outright cheats.

[Deleted]

I'm glad they got rid of the unit stacking, it was literally pain in the ass to wait for the AI to move every unit after every turn, especially on higher difficulty levels.

[Faldric]

I just hate the fact that on levels harder than King, the AI outright cheats.

Yeah. I had this one game starting position close to genghis. He attacked me at around round 10-20 with a couple of warriors and archers. There was nothing I could do. I started with building Scounts, then went for a worker(planned to go tradition) I didnt even get the worker finished. Even if i had spammed warriors before everything else. I would at max have 3 units. He came with about 8.

[namelessone]

OP's post is entirely unreadable. What's with writing each sentence as a new paragraph?
On topic, I enjoy Civ 5. I do like non-stacking units, but I agree that on high difficulties the game is less fun. I prefer to play on average difficulty (4 it is I believe).

[Confined]

Even Jon Shafer (Lead Designer in Civ5) admits he fucked up when advertising his new game..
You can read it here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...s/posts/404789
Civ4 BTS forever!

[drwelfare]

I wanted more future tech in it. I liked how Call to power was a bit more.

[Rukh]

Yeah it does feel like Civ 4 was actually a step UP from Civ 5 which is strange. I did like a couple of things. Hex tiles are nice. I like that cities can defend, and I like no naval transports.

I have to totally agree about the units though. 1upt is a step backwards. culture being used for perks is a step backwards from actual civics that you could choose to feel like an actual civilization. Diplomacy has been lobotomized. The game is just BORING now.

---------- Post added 2013-04-25 at 03:35 AM ----------

Even Jon Shafer (Lead Designer in Civ5) admits he fucked up when advertising his new game..
You can read it here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...s/posts/404789
Civ4 BTS forever!

Interesting article. I have to say I mostly agree with the things he says. The reasons he gives for issues sound pretty spot on, so I'll probably keep track of this kickstarter.

[SloveenEfsei]

civ v is good. usually i try to avoid playing civ since it tend to suck hours of my life away without me ever noticing it.

[namelessone]

Even Jon Shafer (Lead Designer in Civ5) admits he fucked up when advertising his new game..
You can read it here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...s/posts/404789
Civ4 BTS forever!

Just read the entire pitch and never once did he admit he "fucked up". He listed some things that didn't work as he planned, which is natural for any game ever designed. No game is perfect. In fact, some of the things he mentions are personal preferences. For example, I much prefer the resource system as it exists in Civ 5, than "stockpile" that he is planning to implement.

[Deleted]

OP's post is entirely unreadable. What's with writing each sentence as a new paragraph?
On topic, I enjoy Civ 5. I do like non-stacking units, but I agree that on high difficulties the game is less fun. I prefer to play on average difficulty (4 it is I believe).

Everything is in the new paragraph because when you have couple of things to say to merges into one big ball of text which isn't readable at all.

---------- Post added 2013-04-25 at 06:14 PM ----------

I'm glad they got rid of the unit stacking, it was literally pain in the ass to wait for the AI to move every unit after every turn, especially on higher difficulty levels.

Civ was always about huge empires for me at least, like in call to power or civ 2.

Auto defend cities is horrible, you are the emperor there, so you are the commander of the military, so you should defend your citizens not them.

I do not mind if the fighting animation for units are dumb or not, it is a strategic game, so it should be about managing your empire, and not about how flashy your unit animations are.

[Deleted]

Even Jon Shafer (Lead Designer in Civ5) admits he fucked up when advertising his new game..
You can read it here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...s/posts/404789
Civ4 BTS forever!

that's a post-mortem analysis. Does not mean he think he fucked up, is a constructive analysis of what he think he has been done right and wrong after enough time has passed to gain the necessary emotional detachment from the project to be able to think objectively again. This is common practice in game design.

You can expect something in the same tone if he decide to make one on the actual game he's working on

[Tomana]

Civ4 BTS forever!

Totally agree, it is awesome.

[openair]

- no a possibility to gather few units on same title

- Instead of managing armies/armadas you are only managing couple of unites.

- Since you do not have whole armies like hundrets of units it doesn't feel like managing like an empire only like a colonization or commanding a small country. But it doesn't feel like being a great king.

Yes, i love the strategy feeling about it, but what i love about strategy in the previous civ games, was the strategy on macro scale commanding the empire, not a single units.

Its about perspective. Those single units you refer to now resprent those stacks you miss from earlier versions. This was done to add more strategy, which you say you love. In previous Civs the best and therefor only strat was to have the biggest stack. If your support units like catapults or cannons are buried under a stack of spear or riflemen, there is no risk. No risk, no strat. You just waltz up to a city and walk over it.

Without stacks, there is risk. There is strat. Catapults and Cannons can be picked off by a weaker well placed or more mobile (horsemen) force, breaking your siege before it gets very far. Or at the very least delaying conquest of the city and increasing your casualties.

Auto defend cities is horrible, you are the emperor there, so you are the commander of the military, so you should defend your citizens not them.

Auto defend cities is realistic. Militia dont lay down and let conquerors walk over them. If you want to defend a city and not leave it to militia you position units around the city to prevent the enemy from reaching the city. IE: More strat then a single huge stack on top of the city.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what the problem is with one unit per tile. It makes the entire game just... better. No more stacks of doom, better tactical combat, more options for movement and special abilities to be relevant, and more decisions to make.

What I think is particularly bad in Civ 5 still, is the AI and how higher difficulty levels work (The AI does not improve, it is just given cheats, which then automatically make the AI more aggressive).

[Ashnazg]

I'm not sure what the problem is with one unit per tile. It makes the entire game just... better. No more stacks of doom, better tactical combat, more options for movement and special abilities to be relevant, and more decisions to make.

It makes the game somewhat more fun for the player (tactical combat), but it also makes the game a thousand times easier.

1 unit per tile is one of the reasons why I find Civ 5 to be dreadfully boring; a few ranged units backed up by a melee in a fort (or citadel) presents an impenetrable blockade for AI. If you have favorable terrain (mountains with indirect fire units, or units on hills firing into open plains), its not even a contest - you can hold AI at bay for centuries with 2-3 crossbows and a few swordsmen with medic.

Don't get me started on how AI handles water transportation - its a disgrace.

Simply put, I don't believe the AI is on a level where it could handle a 1UPT implementation. For this reason, I am still playing Civ 4 (cavemen2cosmos), rather than Civ 5.