[Figelac]

This is not the Civ 5 forum.

[Unonounaple]

Yeah, the AI is a real game killer. At least with the "stacks of doom" in previous versions of civ the AI could sometimes threaten a city.

[RayFairhurst]

I think there are six fundamental flaws:

1) There are numerous very gay gameplay mechanics, and they all have very gay names. Intrigue and social policies are especially gay, gay all the way, as has been noted at length by the New York Times in their infamous article, "For Civilization Fans, New Sequel Brings Gay Game Mechanics, Even Faggier Social Policies."

2) The AI poses no tactical threat because it cannot understand 1UPT, meaning you are never in any military risk. What is cute about this is the strategic AI does not realize the tactical AI is incompetent, so the strategic AI still bullies you and declares war as if this will intimidate you. Jon Shafer, noted idiot, went ahead with 1UPT anyway because Panzer General. If you have any questions, the answer is always Panzer General.

3) The multiplayer does not work very often, and many features, including map DLCs and Espionage, are simply absent even if you manage to get it to function. It is as if the designers realized at 8 PM the night before the game was due that they forgot to add a multiplayer component, so they copy/pasted the multiplayer code from Panzer General, which must be imitated when all else fails, because Panzer General.

4) Global happiness makes it too easy to expand, as noted in that link above, since there is now no more unhealthiness and there are tons of happiness city states, religious features, and buildings that make it easy to raise your global empire happiness. No effort was made to balance any of these numerous ways to increase global happiness. Additionally, in another nod by Firaxis to incoherence and incomprehensibility, for some inexplicable reason, your entire empire is either happy, or it is not. Your border city that has been ravaged by rape, war, incest, Racism, Judaism, Islam, the Mongols, and barbarians is always going to be just as happy --- no more, no less --- as your pristine capital full of stadiums and pornography, because Panzer General.

5) The game is boring.

6) Economy and land management are non-factors, when they were all important in Civ4. It is almost always the right play to build endless trading posts, spam cities everywhere, and abuse maritime city states for food. They are nerfed in a patch but not much.

[cucceevevaind]

All they had to do was update the graphics for Civ4 BTS and maybe tinker with a few minor things but, nope, they had to throw out the whole history of civ and replace it with a poorly functioning turd because shafer likes Panzer General more than Civ. It's like the dumb **** really wanted to make a Panzer General 2 but they wouldn't let him so he decided to screw up civ instead.

[Nglvayhp]

All they had to do was update the graphics for Civ4 BTS and maybe tinker with a few minor things but, nope, they had to throw out the whole history of civ and replace it with a poorly functioning turd because shafer likes Panzer General more than Civ. It's like the dumb **** really wanted to make a Panzer General 2 but they wouldn't let him so he decided to screw up civ instead.

Jon Shafer is a twinky little douche.

[Jeffery]

And Al, social policies look good on paper, but are terrible. If you country is religious in -3000BC, then by god it will stay religious in 2000AD. I expected something like policies of SMAC, not this bullshit. There was no need to completely scrap the policy system of Civ4.

QFT!

Also the interface is horrible and inadequate to handle the new stuff that was introduced (e.g 1upt) You are forced to do a **** ton of clicking and command issuing each turn wich drives me mad. It should not be so tedious to play a game.

[Knongargoapex]

As usual I took the only truly smart course of action and never bought Civ V in the first place.

[niemamczasu]

It's not Civ II MP, just improved. All Civ II needed was tweaks and better graphics as they evolved. Instead, they decided to just screw it all up.
Civ II was mostly just Civ I, but with MP capabilities and scenarios. They had a winner and gave it up.

You're letting nostalgia get the best of you.

And Al, social policies look good on paper, but are terrible. If you country is religious in -3000BC, then by god it will stay religious in 2000AD. I expected something like policies of SMAC, not this bullshit. There was no need to completely scrap the policy system of Civ4.

As opposed to the old Civ stand-by of switching between Communism and Democracy with a turn of anarchy whenever it's convenient? The current system is no more realistic but it makes your Civ more RPG-like and potentially unique every play-through, especially with the equally RPG-like religion system.

[Allbrunette]

For me it was that they removed all the wow out of the game. There are no supper terrain hexes. The wonders were watered down. The traits were watered down. The buildings were watered down. Everything takes too long to build and then costs maint. Yawn. And While I originally liked the idea of 1upt, it was really poorly implemented. And finally, the worst AI EVER. I did like the social policies but they kept screwing that up also.

[Smittoh]

5. I'd like to buy a complete game, not half a game followed by eighteen DLC packs on the installment plan.

This is why I didn't buy Civ IV until BTS came out.

I didn't even look at Civ III.

[selayeffethy]

As opposed to the old Civ stand-by of switching between Communism and Democracy with a turn of anarchy whenever it's convenient? The current system is no more realistic but it makes your Civ more RPG-like and potentially unique every play-through, especially with the equally RPG-like religion system.

No, as opposed to the SMAC model which was ****ing awesome.

[verybigf]

Where's the beef?

[ananciguinter]

It sounds more fun.

[geasurpacerma]

I enjoy the SP in CiV more than the slugfest that is CIV BTS.

[JeremyBalll]

We could call it World of Civcraft.

While it would be awesome, it's only a pipe-dream. I only player Panzer General for like ten minutes back in the day before I said, "oh, this blows" and going back to CivII, but I don't remember it containing anything like what I described. Perhaps it would work if we added on a horrendously cluttered and fugly interface and had a repetitive cutscene every time your warlord swung his axe?

You're a terrible person.

Yes, but we all knew that already.

[BipiewExifese]

No. But that is a problem of the AI, not the game design.

But even then it is less boring than 4 where always it boils down to:
Lets build a stack of 30 units (at least half of them ranged) and walk through the opponents realm

For me the only real problem with 4 was the Ai's over reliance on seige units.

[wrardymar]

Alpert should be banned for bringing on topic stuff into the off topic! It's only fair!

[2puO4Rhf]

You guys should go over to Realms Beyond and set up a few BtS PBEMs. BtS is still evolving as a game, whereas Civ 5 is devolving...

Except Alby, Alby can stay here.

[nTDsD0aU]

We averaged two turns a day at the start and then turn a day after about turn 40. Turns out to be generally faster than pitboss until you have more than 6 players.

[avitalporatova]

Operation prevent Albie from joining RB: complete.

I'm a genius.