What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Nothing, and no one else is saying so because they're all busy playing.

30 turns to build a district

not enough production and moving anywhere is a chore

not enough diversity

Everything after Civ 4.

Lack of polish, weird balance between tech and production.

There's a whole lot that went right though.

They make me wait till January to play Montezuma.

It's not bad, but pretty much sums it up. Everything good about it feels like a cheap copy of something 4 did right.

Not worth 60. I've put in about 1000 hours into every installment previous and you really shouldn't but it before it's xpacs

>tfw refund got declined

takes more than 2 hours to finish a single game on the quickest setting

It's less played than V now

each new civ will be $5 each

what the FUCK are they thinking

but they just added the polish

The fog of war effects in this game makes me want to tear my eyes out

"Slowly fading map" sounds good in theory but looks like ass

Put it simply, the AI.
It's fucking retarded, even on the highest setting.

Civ 5 complete is just as good as 4 complete though though

6 complete has a potential to be better then both

i think they struck a great balance between a lot of things, but right now the ai doesn't handle that balancing between techs and crap well at all so they're pretty stupid

it's in a far better place than civ v was at this time, and i'd argue it's more or less on par with civ v currently, but it won't be as good until they can polish out the ai some more

i also really wish they'd do something about the spy system, it's kind of crap and super annoying that it's like you have to assign them every other turn

...

And?

this desu

>Civ 5 complete is just as good as 4 complete though

casual

Does she come with a scenario or a map script?

So are 99% of all video games.

I prepaid DLC, so I can't tell what is part of the pack, but I got 2 scenarios (vikings and polish) and Poland with the last patch.

>maybe if I tell Sup Forums that an older iteration is better (and call anyone who disagrees with me a casual) they will think I'm a real gamer

interesting because it's better than V

>casual

Civ 4 does a lot of things right but Hex's alone are a huge plus in 5's favor.

1upt is sort of broken, but so are stacks of doom.

Also, while i'm not a graphicsfag by any means, 4 is a fucking ugly ass game. The fog of war in particular just being a void.

It's a fine start to a new civ game, Civ 5 had 3 expansions to get better with

-tech to reveal resources often is the same tech that introduces the units that require the resource, meaning that players who accidentally put a city in range of a resource are way ahead of everyone else and can build armies of powerful units before anyone can put up a reasonable defense

-it is impossible to build a good city and also spam wonders in the good city, because wonders eat tiles, meaning that there is no reason to have great cities instead of merely reasonable ones

-trade routes are hilariously easy to acquire and abuse - should provide boosts when the trader arrives at each city rather than passive growth per turn, making them more prone to plundering and more of a risk than their current use as the best possible resource by far

because of these three things, instead of wide strats vs tall strats, the dynamic is closer to wide strats vs not playing the game. civs that support tall cities/city growth are irrelevant because you will never ever need more than 9 pop by renaissance/industrial and maybe 15 by information/futuristic. cities that support wide like germany are insanely strong.

Also fucking continents. What a useless, garbage addition to the game. Every civ or upgrade that cares about starting continent might as well read "units get whatever bonus inside your starting city and nowhere else in the fucking game, because your starting continent is that nice bit of land you put your first city and also the ice shelf on the edge of the map".

>you will never ever need more than 9 pop by renaissance/industrial and maybe 15 by information/futuristic

This is wrong and you are wrong.
t. deity and multiplayer pro

Still no mod tools

It's base game is much better than base Civ 5 but Civ 5 has two expansions and a metric shitton of mods

Give it a year and it'll be really good

When the aztec civilization is done with its trial period and is allowed free for everyone, I imagine we will get the workshop.
Else it would be uploaded there.

The only reason you would ever actually want more population is if you own 3/4 of the map but get bored and decide you want to try for a culture win instead.

No, you'd get more population to get more districts to stack more bonuses, and do so without going to war.
Relevant land gets grabbed quickly, so expanding isn't cheap, it requires an arms race that will put both players involved at a disadvantage compared to the guy increasing population in the corner.

>le doomstacks of death
confirmed for not having played anything before civ 5

There's no real incentive to play this over Civ V or better yet, Civ IV.

>Mindless stacks of doom
>Broken
Artillery says hello

pirated version was pre-patch so:
>AI has deranged skitzophrenia, loves and hates you every other turn
>you can rob the AI by changing the trade offer too much
>AI still has warriors in the atomic age
>swarms of religious units like a plague of locusts sweeping the earth

>paying $20 extra for 4 x $5 dlc

I personally feel like I was spending more time building cities and making sure they had enough space/amenities that I didn't really interact with any of the other civs in game. The complexity to it kinda added a shallow layer to the game. The culture tree is retarded too

>tfw was running democracy
>dude declared war on me
>went full on totalitarian
>couldn't change back to muh democracy for some reason

Every time this problem is brought up, the "counter argument" is that hurrrr you haven't played it.
I have played all of the Civilization games, Civilization IV most of all of them, and the stacks were a bad mechanic.
Either make a point or fuck off.

So didn't that last patch with the change to the bonus from factories destroy tall empires all together? At this point there is zero reason not to literally cram every single city you can into every worthless tiny little strip of land.

>Stacks were a bad mechanic
Not him but you're not really providing an argument that they are bad (at least compared to 1UPT)

Large stacks are countered by throwing artillery to stacks. Besides, it's way faster to finish wars when you split your stacks and you don't want to be at war for long at higher difficulties.

I like the escort mechanic as a general idea but they really need to buff up the mid and late escortable units to make them worth while.

Like wise, districts were a good idea, but I struggle to find a game where I am not building industrial first in every city, then housing, then entertainment/science and maybe I'll do a faith/drama district if i have a specific strat. Districts needed to be a larger investment with only one or two per city.

It's also shit that districts don't have choice. I"m not deciding which buildings to cram in there it's always just the tier 1/2/3 over and over.

Overall it just feels like i'm playing on auto and constantly expanding without thinking about a larger strategy. It's just one of those blob rts games where you control points with extra steps.

You know whats funny to me? Civ V had the same tier of productions/culture/science buildings, but somehow "DISTRICTS" which are just tier zero buildings that take up a tile, is somehow some huge leap of design? Exact same thing.

Not quite, as an example in Civ 5 you always built a library in every city because you got a flat science bonus. Since university gave you a percentage you only built that in the cities that would really benefit.

Ideally a good civ game would force you to decide which kind of building goes into tier one science slot so you can specialize.