Civilization V from the unitiated's perspective

[Syntax Error]

So, I recently got my hands on Civ 5, the very first Civ game I'll ever play (partly because the comics done by Shamus were very amusing, partly because IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME I tried a Civ game). As such, I don't see why all the hate from CivFanatic (and probably somewhere else) is warranted. Sure, the game is not without fault. Take note that I haven't gotten the "full" experience yet, as I've played only a few games and am trying to specifically bee-line the different victory conditions before experimenting more. SO far I've gotten a culture victory with France and a Domination victory with Germany on Prince difficulty.

For one, the "diplomacy" in the game means you have to play with little kids. Little kids who happen to be sociopaths and has control over a whole civilization. Seriously, I haven't been able to make a Pact of Cooperation with any of them that I myself initiated. Also, when you're at war and you accepted their Peace Treaty, they'll chew on you for being so close to their borders ON THE NEXT TURN. That, and the AI seems to be able to cross Oceans.

But those are the only ones I noticed so far. I started with the tutorials to get up to speed with the game mechanics, and then I started those few games. I made mistakes here and there on the way to those victories (I had Gandhi declare war on me while my forces were far away, and I didn't even touch his empire. It had me keep a few units in my Cities just in case every game since that little incident).

Personally, the so-called streamlining (i.e. "consolization")of everything is good. You might think that everything is automated, well, there are options to turn those off, even the amount of advice you get from the advisors. The only things I'm wishing for is a little more detailed Diplomacy screen that will show you who's allied with who (it's a little difficult to keep track of which Civs are keeping research agreements and trades with other Civs. Factor in city-states, and you're going to need to take down notes) and Resources screen that will show you how much of each Luxury resource you have

Oh, and if you're wondering why I posted this here rather than the CivFanatic forums, I lurk there and I can only see this thread go down in flames for what basically boils down to "not being Civ 4" (though the accuracy of that statement, I have no idea). Also, since I lurked, I can easily predict what their responses will be.

TL;DR : It took me a lot of willpower to post this while I'm playing a game and I don't dee why it's hated with so much vitriol in a certain community site dedicated to it.

 

[sdfasdfhfgfgjtyisdgdfdfj]

I agree, civilization 5 is a nice and addictive game to play. I played some civ 4 as well and had difficulties understanding every detail, civ 5 has a less steep learning curve because it's a bit automated, but not too automated to take all the fun away.

 

[E-Penguin]

I have only been playing Civ 5 and I've had similar experiences to you, although I haven't met Gandhi yet. I found it to be a really fun and addictive game that I will most likely be playing for ages. I have a tendency to conquer all the other Civs on my continent, so I should probably start playing on Island maps instead.

 

[Syntax Error]

Currently, I'm playing Persia for a science victory.... It's not going well. It's already around 1500 AD and I seem to have gotten in a rut. My Research rate is a puny 120+ per turn on four cities. I think I should have just settled for a two or three cities, then built up culture to get the social policies I need, then got on with the science. I might reroll this game because my area has this lack of hills for production. It sucks because I'm in a peninsula, all alone with no way for the others to get me.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

I'll enjoy it when I get it, so long as the Chinese don't TAKE MY GODDAMN DIAMOND MINE!

(This happened in my only game of Civ 4 on a friend's pc, they took my diamond mine through expansion, I destroyed their entire civilisation, nuking their last city on the 100th turn.)

 

[Syntax Error]

I'll enjoy it when I get it, so long as the Chinese don't TAKE MY GODDAMN DIAMOND MINE!

(This happened in my only game of Civ 4 on a friend's pc, they took my diamond mine through expansion, I destroyed their entire civilisation, nuking their last city on the 100th turn.)

Just be careful around Gandhi, I heard he hates fighting, and if you fight other civs, he'll beat you down.

 

[Gabanuka]

Its my second Civ game and I'm loving every momment of it. Maybe its just because the game waa nice enough to put all the oil and uranium within my borders.

 

[leviticusd]

The original Civilization is the reason I pushed my parents to get a computer back in 94, so I've been around the series for a while and I'm fine with it as well. My life is busier now and playing five fits better with my pace. It's not like I can't play 4 anymore.

My only real beef is the lack of different leaders. Back in the day, each "color" had multiple civilizations it could be. Come across the grey civilization it could be Ghandi and the Indians or Genghis Khan and the Mongols...very different actions. Always having the same leaders isn't as fun.

I miss Shaka of the Zulu's! (though I can't remember if he is in four or not...maybe it was an earlir version...they sort of run together now).

 

[Summerstorm]

Hm, i am having problems with the AI too. They are all INSANELY aggressive, and i have yet to make ANY fair deal with them. (Except open border-open border - And pact of secrecy and pact of cooperation does NOTHING)

They forget loyalty easy, and have weird opinions on military strength and wars. I am pretty sure the AI is the same as 20 years ago in the first game. (I played all civ-games so far - they all are the same in diplomacy... roughly).

Also i have to say that "Civ 5" is like "Civ 4 - light". No more religions, techtree seems weird (have to play 4 again to see what happened exactly). No more Leader/Country combinations.

So far all the games i played i was pretty much in constant war with at least 1/3 of the other civilizations at a time. Whenever i can get peace agreement, another civilization declares war.

(A record for me vs. Japan: over 3100 years of war. HE declared it early in the game... i killed a few dudes... then he lost interest, but would only end the war for two of my cities, all my ressources, open borders and all my gold... FUCK THAT - nuked his capital 5 years before the game ended to make my point)

Game is still good. I like the starting phase. And there are already some mods addressing all the weird stuff.

 

[SonicWaffle]

For one, the "diplomacy" in the game means you have to play with little kids. Little kids who happen to be sociopaths and has control over a whole civilization. Seriously, I haven't been able to make a Pact of Cooperation with any of them that I myself initiated. Also, when you're at war and you accepted their Peace Treaty, they'll chew on you for being so close to their borders ON THE NEXT TURN. That, and the AI seems to be able to cross Oceans.

Pfft, you should try playing Civilization:Revolution. It's a somewhat streamlined console version of Civ, and has been geared towards faster and more aggressive play. As a result, you're constantly being harassed by other leaders in a "give us your tech or we shall crush you!" way. Sometimes, hilariously, they'll talk big and then when you tell them to fuck off they take a look at your armies and go "Well...we totally could crush you if we wanted. But we dont want to. NEXT TIME, HOWEVER..."

There really is no diplomacy. It's limited to;

- Being at war
- Having them threaten war if you don't bow to their demands
- Having them declare war on you/vice versa
- Having them begging for an end to the war they started and you decisively finished with a blitzkrieg of tanks

That's about it. You can also trade techs, but it's pretty pointless as even if you trade, they'll still try and bully you for others later. You have the option to pay other leaders to declare war on nations you dislike, but you don't really have enough money until midway through the game, by which point you have the best army anyway, if you've done your job right.

All that said, it is an incredibly fun game, and worth checking out if you want a shorter, more action-oriented Civ game.

 

[Jovlo]

Civ 5 is also the first Civ game I've played. So far, I love it to bits.
Currently, I'm playing as the Iroquois, who I've made communist, with the US as a close ally.
Catherine of Russia keeps declaring war on me for being close to her, and Napoleon has betrayed me and just tried invading me.
As soon as I develop nukes (which will be very soon now), I will have Napoleon blown apart (thank you for that one, Side Show Bob)!

My only complaint is that the diplomacy victory seems to be neigh impossible, and that it's very hard to get another civilization do something through diplomacy, unless they propose something themselves.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

SO far I've gotten a culture victory with France

That, in itself, is an achievement.

I dunno, I'll get it when the price drops and I have a month to waste.

 

[HentMas]

I have only been playing Civ 5 and I've had similar experiences to you, although I haven't met Gandhi yet. I found it to be a really fun and addictive game that I will most likely be playing for ages. I have a tendency to conquer all the other Civs on my continent, so I should probably start playing on Island maps instead.

you havent met ghandi??
be carefull, if you don´t look out for ghandi, you will end up like me and be his "little *****" for the rest of the game!

 

[Jebusetti]

I have only played a little bit of civ IV but am enjoying the hell out of V, even with some of the broken features, like diplomacy. It could definitely use more polish in this area, maybe one of the inevitable expansions will add a more robust diplomatic system. On the other hand the combat/military aspects are WAAAAAYYY better, being able to form battle lines etc is something that really should have been in this series from near the beginning. speaking of which, i have to go finish shelling the Iroquois...

 

[Syntax Error]

A little workaround to the aggressive AI that I use (not sure if this stands on higher difficulties) is to bow down to those Pacts, but never, under any circumstance, accept an OPEN BORDERS agreement. That's a one-way train to ruin if you agree with a warmonger, and you're gunning for non-domination victory. They'll be reluctant to attack you if you don't know what you have. Also, betraying your word would have a rather large chance of ruining your reputation with other civs (when asked if you're preparing for war by gathering forces near their borders, saying you're just passing by, then declare war on the next turn, for example).

 

[Jandau]

I have a problem with all Civ games: After one playthrough, there's not much to see. In my average game of Civ 1-5, I research everything, build most/all wonders, conquer some stuff, do some diplomacy, develop some huge cities, cover the landscape in roads and farms and whatnot and finally launch the damn spaceship to win the game. I play a Civ game roughy every 1-2 years and then can't touch one for at least another 1-2 years.

The only Civ game where this isn't quite the case is Alpha Centauri, but that's mostly down to there being actual variety in the factions you can choose, as well as a greater number of options regarding how you run things and playstyle. Also, the custom unit designer doesn't hurt. But even there, 2-3 games and I'm all played out on AC for a few years.

This actually applies to most 4X games - I tend to play a fairly balanced style, utilizing my economy, military and research, so there's not much for me to explore unless there is variety in races/factions or widely differing playstyles available.

 

[E-Penguin]

I have only been playing Civ 5 and I've had similar experiences to you, although I haven't met Gandhi yet. I found it to be a really fun and addictive game that I will most likely be playing for ages. I have a tendency to conquer all the other Civs on my continent, so I should probably start playing on Island maps instead.

you havent met ghandi??
be carefull, if you don´t look out for ghandi, you will end up like me and be his "little *****" for the rest of the game!

I am quite aware of Gandhis Reputation in the Civ series. That is why I mentioned him.

 

[El Dingo]

For new players, I see Civ 5 as a GREAT introductory title. It's almost like Civ Revolutions 2, however, rather then a standalone Civ game. A lot of the old school Civ players (Myself included) feel at LEAST a bit betrayed that so much of the depth had been pulled from the game. I see the reasoning behind it, as it DID bring in a LOT of new blood to ohhh and ahhh over the game.

And despite my feelings of betrayal, I still have to say that for the first couple of weeks, I too was addicted to Civ 5. At least, I was until I realized how easy it was to achieve of Domination victory, even on the highest difficulty setting. I haven't touched the game since, and have in fact gone back to play Civ 4 numerous times.

Long story short, if you're new to the series and have no expectations (And enjoy the 4x type of games) you'll probably greatly enjoy Civ 5. If you've played the past Civ games though, you're probably going to miss a lot of the stuff cut and find the game less then optimal.

 

[Vrach]

snip

I wrote a long reply, but it'd just end up ignored. Lemme try to summarize it quickly - the game is fantastic (and I cannot overstate how fun and awesome it is to play), most changes from the previous series are great, there's finally a point to coastal squares. The biggest problem is really, really bad game design, which, after seeing several games with the same symptoms from 2k games, I'm guessing is a result of a rushed release. It's really full of rookie mistakes that should never happen in a mainstream title (like Oil in lakes where work boats can't build offshore platforms cause cities adjacent to lakes can't build naval units).

Optimization is the number 1 issue as it's honestly worse than anything I've ever seen and that includes some really, really awful console ports like Saint's Row 2, TFU, Splinter Cell: Double Agent etc. Fun fact - try picking a huge Earth map. Explore it. Look to the "edge" of the world. You'll see a faint, but obvious line splitting it. Bring a unit there and try to cross the line. Watch the game go totally bonkers over a simply move command.

AI is just awful. The Discussion with them feels like talking to random people on Facebook "Oh hey, I just traveled 17 thousands miles, seeing as we're still in the fucking dark ages and have no means of remote communication and I'm on the other side of the map, to tell you how pathetic you are". Civilizations telling you you're a warmonger for defending yourself. You befriend a City State that's under someone else's "sphere of influence" (even though they're not Allies) and the leader of a nation talks to you like he's 12 and heard you were flirting with his girlfriend. Catherine surrendering all of her territory barring Moscow to Elizabeth after a war that lasted less than 20 turns in which time not a single Russian city fell or even came close to falling to England (no nuclear threat, no great army at the borders, no reason for it whatsofuckingever).

Civilopedia is unfinished, badly written and needlessly hard to navigate through. What in the name of hell lead their design team at some imaginary meeting to going "hey guys, you know Civilopedia? How about we cut out all the text links that made navigating it entirely seamless?" and thinking it's a great idea? The entry of Gold (money, not resource) is a case in point: "Gold has many uses.". I shit you not, that's an entry and a prominent one offered to you at the start of the game through tutorials so you'd better understand it.

Lots of other stuff, but as I said, rather keep it (relatively) short and read. Really, it's a fantastic game, I just wish they took another few months and sorted everything out before shipping it. Here's hoping for decent expansions that solve the problems, but game optimization being the main one, I'm not really holding my breath.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Civ 5 is a better game than Civ 4 to me. Sure, it needs some tuning, but with Civ 5 I was playing one game after another while a game of Civ 4 never made me want to start a new game straight away. I think that there is something about this game that really doesn't satisfy some fans who loved Civ 4 but I like it. If I can sum up the main difference it is that Civ 5 demands that you always play with a definite goal or "strategy" in mind and that Civ 4 is a more reactive game where you just sort of learn when to do certain things to win based on events. It's like, in Civ 5, I can plan a strategy where I never have to declare war and I have a chance of doing it if conditions are right but in Civ 4 something always seemed to come up that forced me into a war.