I bought Civilization V on one of the first days it came out, if not the first. It was the reason I made a Steam account in the first place, and was my first game on Steam. I excitedly started my first game and... was severely disappointed. The game was too slow. Everything took too long to build. The AI would randomly attack me and go from "friendly" to "guarded" without any visible provocation. I tried playing a few games but was never able to stand actually finishing any of them. I've never seen a tank in Civilization V. I had fun in the games, don't get me wrong, but only when there was combat. I liked the way the new "1 unit per tile" thing made armies much more tactical. Still though, I wasn't enjoying the actual strategy part of this strategy game. I looked around the civfanatics forum for people of similar disposition when I came across this: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html It's a very comprehensive criticism of Civ5. I found myself agreeing with most of the things he's said. Now that Stalin has made a new LP of Civ5, I've found myself wondering if they ever fixed any of the issues that made Civ5 unplayable for me. Obviously, a lot of the things the review mentions was fixed or adjusted, but the main 5 issues he has still seem to hold true. In Stalin's LP, his 9 pop cities still take 20 or so turns to build a single building and the AI diplomacy is incredibly random and idiotic. What I'm asking is, what is your opinion of CivV and why do you like it? What did it do wrong and what did it do right? Do you like this installment of the Civ series better than the previous? It should be obvious by now that I like Civ4 a lot more, and I still sometimes go back to play a game every now and then.
Civ 4 will always be the greatest civ I've ever played. from what I've seen, thy streamlined too much in Civ 5, it looks overly simplyfied and slow, what is it like when you change the game speed though?
I'm not sure. I haven't played CivV since... actually, Steam won't even tell me the last time I played. I guess it's a long ass time.
I love Civ V, and while there are indeed some issues, I find that for the first time you actually need strategy instead of the build-a-unit-per-turn-and-put-them-into-giant-deathstacks after which you destroy everyone. The amount of resources you have actually matters for a change, chokes matter, terrain finally makes a difference etc. Yes, cities are sometimes slow with building, but the buying buildings feature (which is one of the best things in Civ V in my opinion) helps solve that. As for the game speed, I actually set it to epic because I found that on any faster speed you speed through all eras in just a couple of turns, and you spend all your time and money upgrading your outdated units. The Earth map, while somewhat enjoyable, is somewhat of a disappointment. England is for some reason attached to the European mainland, and because of the city building rule, Europe generally has a maximum of five cities in it. The biggest problem I've found with Civ V so far is the performance, but that's mainly my computer. All in all, all Civ games I've played were amazing (except Colonisation, but I never got into that game too much), and what I love about the series is that all three (as in, III, IV and V, all the Civ games I've played) are different enough that the newer games don't stop me from playing the older ones. Oh, also, Civ V now has steampunk, so that's a definite plus.
