Civilization V

Mivo · **#21**

judicata wrote:

[Maybe the critics of Civ V will eventually adopt it and prefer it, maybe not. I'd really like to play it, though.

The core problem of Civ5 is that the lead designer (who by now "left" the company) tried to recreate Panzer General. There is nothing wrong with that, and I'd love a good PG remake, but the Civ-typical map sizes cannot handle the "one unit per tile" (1UPT) tactical combat. It's not just the actual tactics that the AI terribly fails at, it's also the pathing and the meta organization -- the strategy -- that the game can't deal with. The maps are simply too small for the number of units (for the player too). This is unrelated to the actual bugs and UI shortcomings, all of which can be fixed -- this, however, is a fundamental design flaw.

The game has also been dumbed down in many ways, but this would fall in the category of criticism you mentioned. If multiplayer worked, the above limitations would be tolerable, but it's pretty much not playable at all. Worse than Civ4's MP when it came out. Now, over half a year after release, Civ5's MP is still virtually non-existent, while at the same time the AI cannot deal with 1UPT (as seen here: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/Lastg ... ofdoom.jpg).

nagano · **#22**

That screenshot seems almost unbelievable. I can't imagine how, under any normal circumstances, a player could maintain an army that size without crushing costs. (Not to mention being a couple hundred years behind in technology.) How did this happen?

Mivo · **#23**

That's the AI at higher difficulties.

It gets various bonuses, but as seen, it really can't handle the combat. Civ AI has never been stellar, but in previous games it played better because the "stack of doom" approach was much easier to manage by the computer.

nagano · **#24**

Ok, so that's the problem of the bad AI. But have you ever played a game where you were able to amass an army of that size? Or is this purely an AI issue, and thus not to the point that it can be called a basic design flaw?

topazg · **#25**

nagano wrote:

Ok, so that's the problem of the bad AI. But have you ever played a game where you were able to amass an army of that size? Or is this purely an AI issue, and thus not to the point that it can be called a basic design flaw?

If multiplier is not really currently operational, is the AI's inability to co-ordinate a large army not a rather basic design flaw? The game mechanics themselves may not be flawed, but I suspect the experience would be.

nagano · **#26**

topazg wrote:

nagano wrote:

Ok, so that's the problem of the bad AI. But have you ever played a game where you were able to amass an army of that size? Or is this purely an AI issue, and thus not to the point that it can be called a basic design flaw?

If multiplier is not really currently operational, is the AI's inability to co-ordinate a large army not a rather basic design flaw? The game mechanics themselves may not be flawed, but I suspect the experience would be.

Yes, I agree completely on that. I was referring to this article, linked in Mivo's original post. It argues that the basic design is flawed, but I do not see how it would be possible to develop an army that size without bonuses. If there's a way to do that, then I'd like to know what that is.

nagano · **#27**

For those interested, a Korea DLC is set to come out soon.

nagano · **#28**

So, what do you guys think of Gods & Kings?

Mivo · **#29**

nagano wrote:

So, what do you guys think of Gods & Kings?

G&K greatly improves the game. The strategic AI is playing much more like a rational being and less like a backstabbing lunatic who is suffering from memory issues now, even though it will still sometimes backstab you (which is fine), Even the combat AI is improved. I had a nice match where the AI attacked and used correct battle formations (artillery behind infantry), pulled out damaged units and focused down damaged enemy units (mine!). It was beautiful, though from various discussions I gather that the combat AI isn't always as excellent and it seems to depend on setting and civilization, but I notice definite improvements.

Religion is a nice addition. I am still undecided which I like better, the new incarnation of religion (:)) or the previous one of Civ4. In any event it adds flavour and depth, and it offers something else "to do", which the game benefits from. I actually like the relatively complexity of the plentiful pantheon choices, though it gives certain civs a very strong advantage if you want a specific belief early on.

Espionage, I'm a bit torn about. I preferred having an actual unit to move around on the "board" and the plain menu choices seem a bit sterile and unimaginative to me. Moreover, I would have liked more choices here for what a spy is doing. On the flipside, technology stealing is something that makes the AI much more competitive and that's what makes it a nice addition.

The new options in regard to the City States makes them finally an addition to the series that I actually like. Buying them all out isn't feasible anymore and I like having gold issues (though happiness now seems to be rather trivial)

Multiplayer also seems to be work more smoothly now, though I haven't had a chance yet to extensively test it yet.

Overall, I think this is an excellent expansion that brings the game much closer to where it should have been from the beginning. It feels more like a game now, and less like a narrow race for victory -- there's more emphasis on "experience" (as in atmosphere) rather than just winning. Very happy with it!

nagano · **#30**

Yeah, I like the religion system, but espionage could stand to be improved by adding sabotage missions. It's a little strange when it seems that there's more to do with spies in city states than in other civs. A lot of people have mentioned that happiness is too high, and will probably be tweaked in the next patch. In my current game, happiness is at >130, without even building colosseums or circuses, and with some annexed cities with no courthouses!

Civilization V

Who is online