I've figured out what's wrong with Civilization V

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for taiwwa
taiwwa

301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 taiwwa
Member since 2012 • 301 Posts

Civ 5 for me comes down to you basically come up with a formula at the start of a play session, which for me would be like, "use the liberty tree with Carthage to get maximum benefit of harbor trade routes" and then babysit it for 2-3 hours.

Meanwhile, a game like Starcraft 2 essentially has the same thing going on, testing your build theory vs the opponent, and it all wraps up in about 20 minutes.

the late game is awful because what happens is as the civilization grows to cover the world, your army gets bigger. This is because you have more land that you need to defend and because you have more resources to devote to the army.

When it comes time to fight, you have to move each piece individually. So if your army has 20 units, that's like 60 clicks per turn. And if you want to keep things simple with a small teching civilization, you at some point will be invaded by a large army so you'll have to do move around 20 units per turn thing anyways.

The fundamental problem is that everything but army maintinence is subject to diminishing returns. Like, culture quickly gets expensive.

Growth of cities slows meaning that each unit of food is less useful. The only area that isn't subject to this is armies, with each unit always taking up 1 gold in maintinence.

So it would probably be smart to do something like units in renaissance age cost 5 gold per turn in maintinence, and atomic age units cost 10 gold in maintinence.

Right now, by the time you get to the late game, your economy should be roaring and so it is easy to have like 100 gold surpluses, so you don't need to economize in unit production. You just build more. But to get the same comparative effectiveness, you need to build many many more units. SO you just end up clicking like crazy.

Since modern weapons are so much more complex than simple clubs, this makes perfect sense to make unit maintinence more expensive for modern units.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e97585ea928c
deactivated-5e97585ea928c

8521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 deactivated-5e97585ea928c
Member since 2006 • 8521 Posts
The only thing i hate is the fact the multiplayer is so broken you cannot get a group of 5 or more together and play a full game without it permanently breaking on at least one of the participants.
Avatar image for padaporra
padaporra

3508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 padaporra
Member since 2005 • 3508 Posts

No sir, you didn't. You just discovered why it's not like Stracraft II. In other words: No **** Sherlock, civilization is not like Starcraft.

Avatar image for rimau79
rimau79

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 rimau79
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
it is quite an interesting idea, maybe not the only thing that is wrong with Civ 5 (still a nice game), but could help, the main problem I see is that in higher difficulty levels they would use this unit maintanence cost, as another AI advantage, and it would be simply devastating on immortal or even on emperor the idea could be tested with a mod I think, considering how complex mods can be, this kind of change should not be a problem for someone who is already into it IMO the idea is worth trying
Avatar image for taiwwa
taiwwa

301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 taiwwa
Member since 2012 • 301 Posts

I described how it is like starcraft 2, dude. It's just that Starcraft 2 does a much better job on the endgame.

It's kind of like a pop song compared to a classical opus.

but they're both songs.

Avatar image for chaplainDMK
chaplainDMK

7004

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 chaplainDMK
Member since 2008 • 7004 Posts
Well Civ always had quite bad endgames, for example Civ 2 and 3 games ended in total dystopia with constant nuclear war and massive global warming. I think the main issue is that when you get your economy going in the late game there is no way the AI holds up any kind of challange to you, the 1 unit per tile, while totally awesome, basically breaks the AI's back in 4 places.
Avatar image for chaplainDMK
chaplainDMK

7004

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 chaplainDMK
Member since 2008 • 7004 Posts
The next Civ game should look to replace individual units with armies, so you'd have a small ammount of armies instead of dozens and dozens of units.