Originally posted by RF Samaister:http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.htmlPretty much this is why CIV 4 is still the best game of the series. For any decent player, CIV 5 is too easy to beat on any level and the horrible AI has nowhere to hide due to the 1UPT format.Heres hoping the new CIV: Beyond Earth is better.
Originally posted by CountZero:Originally posted by RF Samaister:http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.htmlPretty much this is why CIV 4 is still the best game of the series. For any decent player, CIV 5 is too easy to beat on any level and the horrible AI has nowhere to hide due to the 1UPT format.Heres hoping the new CIV: Beyond Earth is better. That review is comparing the base CiV with CIV+two expansion packs. Base CiV and CiV+GK+BNW are almost two completely different games.
Originally posted by RF Samaister:I disagree, the 2 expansions do not change the gameplay in any significant way, they seek to backpedal on some of the punitive aspects of the original, but the game remains broken in most respects. For instance road upkeep, social policies et al. The terrible AI and ridiculous diplomacy remain, the fact you can simply ICS and ally with maritime for the win on any level hasn't changed. The annex/puppet/raze city option is not fixed, another penalty CIV5 imposes on the player.Honestly most of the new content is just shameless flogging of DLC and feeble attempts to mitigate the broken nature of the game, nothing else.
Originally posted by RF Samaister:I'm keen for you to prove otherwise, but the reason there are no pro leagues with CIV 5 is self evident.
Originally posted by CountZero:It seems like you are trying to play CiV in the manner of CIV. Different game, different rules. And here I thought we human beings are flexible enough to adapt to new conditions being imposed on us.
MP Pro League Standings (http://www.civplayers.com/) for CiV is 30 pages long and CIV is 12. SP Challenges for CiV happen all of the time on civfanatics with lengthy discussions after they're completed. Care to spout more drivel?
Originally posted by CountZero: As for the opaque CiV diplomacy, I guess it is a matter of taste (and whether or not one has Infoaddict installed ;)). I enjoy it for the most part (I usually play large maps on Immortal or Deity) and there's often a reason for a turn in relations (AI made new alliances behind my back, established more trade routes with an hostile civ, etc). Or, your lands nearly surround theirs and they decide to adopt a Putin-like diplomacy. Or, there are civs that make it a habit to backstab you (no mystery there). Furthermore, if I can inject a some aspect of realism here, very rarely, if at all, diplomatic relations between two civilizations/nationstates have remained at a friendly level lasting thousands of years no matter how one side tried to appease the demands of the other, vice versa. Lastly, there's a CIV diplomacy mod for CiV that contains map trading, vassalages and more.
Originally posted by RF Samaister:As for the game itself, i note you have been unable to refute any of my statatements regarding the broken nature of the game. I mean really, you don't actually believe your nonsense about alliances behind you back, do you? Or the fact that a civ will behave counter intuitively and in a fashion bordering on the absurd?---snip--Oh and your insults, far from wounding, lend creedence to what i state as its obvious that the truth hurts.:tlove:
Originally posted by RF Samaister:Having a MP league table doesn't mean anything apart from the fact it is played by people, sort of like showing the local footy league then claiming it as proof of pro leagues. Wrong.
Originally posted by RF Samaister:The fact that the game must be modded to make it playable with features that should already be there is a damning statement itself.I've been a CIV player for nearly 15 years and V is the worst. CIV. EVER.