Anyone try Civ 5?

[naut]

The big flaws in Civ 5 lie in the AI and the execution of the features, for example:

Hexes are great, except the AI cannot handle them.
Moving units over sea without transports is great, except the AI doesn't understand the difference and treats it as land. Running units into your navies to be destroyed at will.
Diplomacy is gimped, if you have a border with any Civ they WILL declare war on you.

Etc.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I've been having a look at CIV 5 and its screenshots,reviews and others,and from what I hear,they're contanstly updating the game with patches. CIV 4 doesn't appeal to me as CIV 5 does.

[easytarget]

There are a lot of game choices out there. That's my challenge primarily with Civ 5. When I've got spare time to spend playing a game, I just didn't find Civ 5 that engaging, it felt much like the previous versions. All quibbles about how rubbish it is compared to earlier versions aside, since that sort of complaint comes up with any series. Besides, the game has been done frankly, and needs to really just be put to bed. The moment in time was Civ 1 and possibly Civ 2, and again, everyone can argue about that all day. But at the point of release, Civ was unlike most things out there because the field wasn't as crowded at the time, it was a crazily addictive game and everyone I knew at the time wasted away days playing it. Good times, but that moment has passed.

The one thing I'll say, and this is frankly feint praise, because the fact remains, I'll play yet another S2 campaign before I'll ever pick up Civ 5 again (in fact I recently uninstalled it), is this, the game updated its graphics, they did indeed look good, and for me at least, the battle implementation that did away with stacks was a nice change, I was simply bored out of my mind by SOD's in every previous iteration. So it was refreshing there was even a modicum of planning required to position units to maximize there effect, or that ranged weapons actually had ranged effects.

Does better graphics and an interesting change in combat mean the game is worth playing given the array of other options? Nope. Time is limited, and this one has been done for most ppl, certainly has for me. RIP Civ, good run.


P.S. Want to see a turn based game that BEGS to be remade identical to the original with just the graphics updated that I'd happily pay 60 bucks for? X-com: UFO Defense would be my choice hands down.

[Subotan]

I've been having a look at CIV 5 and its screenshots,reviews and others,and from what I hear,they're contanstly updating the game with patches. CIV 4 doesn't appeal to me as CIV 5 does.

Civ 4 is a finished game.

[CountArach]

I've been having a look at CIV 5 and its screenshots,reviews and others,and from what I hear,they're contanstly updating the game with patches. CIV 4 doesn't appeal to me as CIV 5 does.

Then go with Civ 5. Everyone should try the Civilization series at some point, becuse it is a truly tremendous series. Given that most of what 5 is criticised for is what earlier games did better, if you haven't played the earlier games it isn't going to be a problem for you - you will enjoy it on its own. If you really enjoy it then maybe later you can have a shot at Civ 4, which, as said, is generally considered a better game, but if you don't like 5 then the series may not be for you.

[LeftEyeNine]

It seems Civ V is such a disappointment that nobody gave much care about Gods & Kings expansion that brought back what was meant to be there from the very start.

I got it and played it a bit yesterday. Since I did not ever play Civ V for long enough to spot out the differences, I can't really say "this and that". What's as obvious as sun as is the addition of Faith component and Pantheons thereby.

So no Gods & Kings owners here ?

[Voigtkampf]

Its on my "to review" list.

[TinCow]

I plan to get to it eventually. I was massively disappointed by Civ V, but I remain optimistic that it's 'final' state after multiple expansions and patches will be good. I played Civ IV throughout its entire development history, and it really only became the superb game we all love after its expansion packs. The initial Civ IV release was decent, but not superb. I'm hoping that Civ V will go that way as well, so I'm just waiting.

[Centurion1]

the hexagons and 1 tile fights make the game 1000 times better, anyone who says differently is just one of those people who bitch and moan about old stuffs superiorty. And now god and kings added back religion, its starting to be alot of fun.

And obviously its gorgeous.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The big flaws in Civ 5 lie in the AI and the execution of the features, for example:

Hexes are great, except the AI cannot handle them.
Moving units over sea without transports is great, except the AI doesn't understand the difference and treats it as land. Running units into your navies to be destroyed at will.
Diplomacy is gimped, if you have a border with any Civ they WILL declare war on you.

Etc.

That matches my opinion. I haven't tried it in a long time, but on top of those issues the performance on my fairly respectable rig ground to a halt over time. A streamlined Civ would be wonderful, if it played tight.

[frogbeastegg]

I got G&K. For reference: I like 5 despite recognising some fairly major flaws with it, mainly the poor AI. It's ... catchy in a way prior entries in the series never quite were. I do love the hex map, and the one unit per tile. I like Civ 4 as well - but not the Beyond the Sword expansion. I play vanilla or Warlords when I play 4. I loathe 4's version of espionage, and those tedious corporations. I was never quite fond of the way it handled religion either.

I had some tech problems with G&K until they released the first patch. I couldn't play on any of the map sizes above 'duel' without random crashes, so my experience with the new systems is limited. It's hard to spy on people or use religion effectively when there's only 1 AI on the map! I do appreciate the new civs; some of their unique abilities are quite novel and it's always good to have more faces to play against. The plentiful minor tweaks here and there smooth out the play experience; UI tweaks, AI tweaks, tech tree tweaks, a couple of nice new wonders, new tile resources, having the Ai approach you to renew trade deals - all of those tiny details add up to make play slightly more engaging than previously. Now that the game will play larger maps without crashing, I'm starting to play more seriously. So far, I think that religion seems fine, if light, and espionage will be turned off in the vast majority of my games as it adds little but irritation. I am still undecided about the new city state system. On the one hand, it's a bit more in-depth than spamming gold to win favour, on the other it relies a bit too heavily on random missions and AI spy spam.

AI is not super-improved but it is a bit better, although strangely hit and miss. In some games it will play quite well, in others it makes idiotic mistakes in exactly the same areas where it performed decently before. For example, sometimes it guards its embarked units with proper naval ships and makes it difficult to intercept the invasion force. Other time sit sails blissfully along without a single guard. Diplomacy is likewise improved yet variable. Sometimes things work out sensibly and perpetual peace is possible, others everyone seems to be very aggressive and/or unpredictable.

I did have significant issues with the new performance boost option they introduced in the 1.6 patch which came out shortly before G&K; that was easily fixed by turning an option off in the game's .ini. Essentially, the developers force the game to use a single core now. With my i7 CPU, turn cycle times increased fivefold. With this option disabled the game still cycles turns a bit slower but it's bearable.

I suppose the telling thing is that previously I used to play 3-5 games in a weekend then not touch it for months. I've played a game or three each weekend since G&K's release, and am planning to play again this weekend if I can find time. I'd say that G&K is more worthwhile for the new civs and small details than it is for the two major new features. I got G&K for a little over half price thanks to amazon.uk, and for that kind of price I'm happy now that it works properly. I wouldn't recommend it to others at full price. If you can find it similarly discounted, and if you like 5 to begin with, then it's possibly something you want to pick up. If you do not like 5 already you will not find anything in G&K to change your mind.

[LeftEyeNine]

I got G&K. For reference: I like 5 despite recognising some fairly major flaws with it, mainly the poor AI. It's ... catchy in a way prior entries in the series never quite were. I do love the hex map, and the one unit per tile. I like Civ 4 as well - but not the Beyond the Sword expansion. I play vanilla or Warlords when I play 4. I loathe 4's version of espionage, and those tedious corporations. I was never quite fond of the way it handled religion either.

I had some tech problems with G&K until they released the first patch. I couldn't play on any of the map sizes above 'duel' without random crashes, so my experience with the new systems is limited. It's hard to spy on people or use religion effectively when there's only 1 AI on the map! I do appreciate the new civs; some of their unique abilities are quite novel and it's always good to have more faces to play against. The plentiful minor tweaks here and there smooth out the play experience; UI tweaks, AI tweaks, tech tree tweaks, a couple of nice new wonders, new tile resources, having the Ai approach you to renew trade deals - all of those tiny details add up to make play slightly more engaging than previously. Now that the game will play larger maps without crashing, I'm starting to play more seriously. So far, I think that religion seems fine, if light, and espionage will be turned off in the vast majority of my games as it adds little but irritation. I am still undecided about the new city state system. On the one hand, it's a bit more in-depth than spamming gold to win favour, on the other it relies a bit too heavily on random missions and AI spy spam.

AI is not super-improved but it is a bit better, although strangely hit and miss. In some games it will play quite well, in others it makes idiotic mistakes in exactly the same areas where it performed decently before. For example, sometimes it guards its embarked units with proper naval ships and makes it difficult to intercept the invasion force. Other time sit sails blissfully along without a single guard. Diplomacy is likewise improved yet variable. Sometimes things work out sensibly and perpetual peace is possible, others everyone seems to be very aggressive and/or unpredictable.

I did have significant issues with the new performance boost option they introduced in the 1.6 patch which came out shortly before G&K; that was easily fixed by turning an option off in the game's .ini. Essentially, the developers force the game to use a single core now. With my i7 CPU, turn cycle times increased fivefold. With this option disabled the game still cycles turns a bit slower but it's bearable.

I suppose the telling thing is that previously I used to play 3-5 games in a weekend then not touch it for months. I've played a game or three each weekend since G&K's release, and am planning to play again this weekend if I can find time. I'd say that G&K is more worthwhile for the new civs and small details than it is for the two major new features. I got G&K for a little over half price thanks to amazon.uk, and for that kind of price I'm happy now that it works properly. I wouldn't recommend it to others at full price. If you can find it similarly discounted, and if you like 5 to begin with, then it's possibly something you want to pick up. If you do not like 5 already you will not find anything in G&K to change your mind.

My lady ?

[frogbeastegg]

I couldn't find any posts containing the fix instructions when I wrote mine, then I had to leave the PC for a while. Back now, managed to find the quote.

Hey everyone,

As you may have seen in other threads, the guys at Firaxis have a suggestion for the people who have been experiencing issues with the latest patch (early game crashes as well as slow turns).

Please follow these directions and see if it helps out on your machine, and report here to let us know!

1. Open up your config.ini (My Documents/My Games/Sid Meier's Civilization V/)
2. Look for the following line: EnableGameCoreThreading = 1
3. Change it to: EnableGameCoreThreading = 0

When that setting is on (default) multicore PCs will only use a single core. Some people find that leaving the setting on improves performance, many seem to find it makes no difference, and others find that it absolutely murders performance. My i7 2600k was taking longer to process the very first turn of a brand new game than it used to do to process a late-game turn with a very large, busy map. Some people also find that the setting affects game stability; I didn't find it made any difference.

This change rolled out as part of the most recent standard Civ 5 patch. All game owners will have it whether they own G&K or not.