I’ve gone through pretty much the same Tom Chick Progression with this game, much as I doubted I would for the first few days. In a world where CA can get raked over the coals for the AI in Empire:TW, Civ5 should have ended up buried in concrete blocks out in the desert, it’s so far below ETW in this regard it’s not even funny.
(ed - nonetheless I voted for “major issues”. Although I think they’re more likely to get fixed by modders than the developers)
Weak AI matters far less in Civ5 because unlike Empire: Total War [sic], Civ5 is not all about warfare. As I understood the complaints, the Empire AI didn’t know how to handle naval invasions, and that was a game breaker because it’s a wargame about controlling overseas empires.
On the the other hand, if the Civ5 AI doesn’t know how to properly use its military… that just means you won’t get hassled as much while pursuing a cultural or diplomatic or science victory, and while trying not to go bankrupt and fulfilling city state quests etc. Competitive AI is crucial in the TW series because its empire building aspect is so rudimentary. Civ5 is more like Europa Universalis – it’s okay if the AI merely serves as a roadblock on your SimEmpire’s road to victory.
And honestly, if you’re looking for a wargame with a competitive AI the Civilization series never was the place to go. Civ4 eventually got decent but only thanks to the laughable killer stack system. I prefer the Civ5 system with the Civ5 AI.
I think I’m now on the downside of the Chick Curve. I voted “Great game despite minor flaws” but after 6 wins (and countless losses) ranging on map sizes from Duel to Standard and game difficulties from King to Deity, I’m starting to see what Tom meant about the AI being broken. If I were to revote I would say “Major issues but may be good after patches.”
I don’t mind being able to outfight the AI, unit for unit. That’s pretty standard, and I am well aware how hard it is to write an AI that is as good as a human (I have a master’s degree with an emphasis in AI).
However, having an AI that doesn’t build a navy at all, as opposed to an AI that uses a navy only so-so is a problem. As I noted in the other thread, some of the AI personalities seem to skip naval units altogether. I was at war with Bismark, who refused to make peace with me. I crushed his unescorted transports, so he stopped sending them. When I ran into his continent it was jam packed with almost every square covered with tanks and mech infantry. He was smart enough to stop sending unescorted transports only to get them sunk, but it didn’t seem to occur to him that perhaps he should build some ships to escort them.
I’m also quite annoyed that I haven’t seen a single enemy airplane. This makes the Anti-Aircraft and SAM units useless, and means the Fighter interceptor task is also useless.
For me, not having the AI use one of its key combat elements at all (the airforce) and having some of the AI personalities not use a second combat element (the navy) means this game was shipped too early.
It’s an okay strategy game, if it was called something else (and didn’t have Sid Meier’s name on it) I’d be less disappointed with it.
The number of times I open a diplomatic screen and find the AI going backwards at a vast rate of gold-per-turn means it’s not even playable as a very expensive and rubbish version of sim city. It can’t even avoid going bankrupt if it’s left entirely unmolested, unless you play above prince (even then it somehow seems to manage). To me that’s a lot worse than anything CA did, and CA did some pretty bad stuff.
I agree with Chris Nahr, YET AGAIN.
Chris, did you put something in my water?
I’m also on the downwards curve, as such I voted “Major issues”.
I’ve had some good games, though I might put the game on hold for the moment.
Still really enjoying it, but the transports need something to make them less ridiculous. Maybe the late game transport is exactly the same strength as an early game transport, but just have a different model, but it looks ridiculous to have steel transporters destroyed by archers.
In my current game I attacked a medieval Chinese wooden transporter with two destroyers, and it just sailed away as if nothing had happened. On the other hand my steel clad infantry transporter loaded with a machine-gun wielding 20th century army, was taken out with one round from a 15th century cho-ku-nu.
This:
Beating:
Is the most stupid thing I’ve seen since Civ 1.
Totally counter-intuitive, but the way to attack enemy transports with surface ships is not to shoot at them, it’s to run your navy ships right on top of the transport. If you do this, it will destroy the enemy transport instantly.
I did the same thing you did and shot at transports, same as with other ships, and was disgusted at how pitifully my ships did. Someone had to tell me that you aren’t supposed to shoot at transports.
I went with Major Issues, though I am probably somewhere between Major Issues and Terrible Game.
Diplomacy, pacing, and AI are the headline problems.
More than that, there is just a lot of frustration in the design. Run lowing on gold? You can’t spend less on research. Need more happiness? Can’t spend more on culture, you have to build buildings, but that takes time and ultimately costs more gold.
Still, gameplay is addictive. The real test will be going to back to Civ IV and seeing which I prefer.
It’s an okay strategy game. I’d be a lot less disappointed if it had something other than Sid Meier’s Civilization in the title because I don’t think it lives up to that lineage.
And more naval stupidity… two veteran destroyers and two veteran battleships vs… one frigate. The frigate takes fire from all four, and still has more than half its hit points!
Do you often spend dozens of hours on what you think are terrible games with major issues, and analyze their gameplay mechanics in great detail? :p
Also wanted to vote “great game major issues”. There’s too many obvious bugs and UI problems. To Firaxis’ credit, many of the UI complaints could be fixed by 3rd party mods.
Doesn’t anyone if the game is part of a series they love and a game they want to be good? I kept playing for hours, flipping game parameters and difficulty settings, trying to find the game I’d hoped was in there. With a game like this is can take hours to figure out what the issues are.
The only reason I spent several hours on the game was because it has Civilization in the title, which is my favorite game franchise. I always approach a game wanting to like it, but no luck here. Civ5 is just a very mediocre title with a lot of flaws. Hopefully an expansion or two can turn it into something interesting.
I only play Halo on my WiiStation 3
Fourth option there, Bunky.
I gave up on Ultima 8 after 30 minutes, so, no.
What UI problems? I can barely think of any, and the UI mods I’ve seen strike me as unnecessary. Civ5 has the best UI of any TBS I’ve played (and it’s very pretty, too!).
The lack of a luxury resource display and the poor state of the Civilopedia are two of the most glaring problems. There’s also a general clunkiness and lack of useful information all over the place in the city/production screens, economic and diplomatic overviews, etc. The visual style of the UI is nice, but the content and organization/efficiency is severely lacking.
I voted major issues but I hope they will be resolved through official patches and unofficial mods. For me, the game-ruining bugs, gameplay balance, and non-combat AI are major concerns.