Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

CiV (Demo) is out

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
...and it's, well short, and you don't really get an impression of the full game.

So, you Kwa-fags, who already have the full game, what's your first impressions?

Also, as a side-note, there's no automation on workers in the demo, is this also true for the full game? If so, that's gonna make my LAN-civ-parties a lot slower...
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
7,269
It's okay. It's definitely still a Civ game. I don't know if they added this in BotS for Civ 4, but now every n amount of culture you assign a national policy, which adds a good bit of depth. The City-States are implemented pretty well, and it's worthwhile to get them on your good side (but expensive to keep them there). You get missions from them every now and then to protect them from barbarians or other nations. The combat so far is an improvement, and I haven't felt that the archers have been especially ridiculous, especially considering cities can fire back.
 

BearBomber

Scholar
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
566
I played only for a few turns, but city states are very nice addition, I liked that they want you to destroy nearby barbarians and you have to rush to that place because other nations will also target it, the fact that one city state wants you to destroy the other is also a nice addition. Game is faster and and smoother than previous civs. Workers don;t stop your city growth so you can produce them in the beginning which gives you something to do in the first few turns, unlike the Civ IV that forced you to do nothing besides ordering your scouts to wander aimlessly.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
7,269
Yeah, played some more. Combat is way improved. Also, it doesn't seem like conquest is necessarily the ideal way to go, and getting to a cultural victory seems like it would feel more rewarding than Civ IV.
 

Cassidy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
7,922
Location
Vault City
Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
Yeah, played some more. Combat is way improved. Also, it doesn't seem like conquest is necessarily the ideal way to go, and getting to a cultural victory seems like it would feel more rewarding than Civ IV.

What about difficulty? Are the claims "the game will always favor and hand-hold the player at odds" true or was it just PR to fit with the shit crowd?
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
That sounds great. I'm looking forward to toying around with the combat. How does the national policy-thing work?

Also: Automation of workers - yes or no?
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
I played the demo and one thing that disappointed me was that economics have been way dumbed down. All improvements are just +1 improvements, and there are way fewer improvement types compared to civ 4.

Edit: Just found a way to disable the demo turn timer. Go to demonoid and search for "Civilization 5 Demo Trainer".
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
I'm playing the demo now (with turn counter disabled) and so far it looks like Civ5 maybe the worst, most dumbed down Civ to date.

- ZOCs are non-existent for all but enemy units, units still can pass through each other
- The retarded "declare war to move into the territory of another country" is still there, while the same doesn't apply to the territory of city states
- The economy was dumbed down, so far careful planning of where to put your population to work is not there
- The relations with city-states are extremely primitive. Basically the game forces you to give a locked amount of gold (you have no choice what to give yourself) to improve relations with them and not much else.
- Tech-tree is now smaller (note that I'm not talking about medieval-modern techs which are not there due to the demo limitations)
- The combat outcome is being predicted for you before it even started. There is no small random chance of victory being added anymore. You just look at the handholding message that predicts everything and decide whether to attack or not.
- Units still have a single "strength" stat for everything incl. damage/defences/hp
- Speeding up production is dumbed down. You now either purchase a unit for a full price (and it appears in your city instantly instead of waiting for another turn - another dumbing down, basically you can churn out defences for the city each turn they are killed if you have gold) or don't purchase anything at all. No you can't just pay what you have to speed up the production.
- The combat itself is not an improvement. Same shit, different name. You will achieve the exactly same "depth" if you'll just put one unit per square around enemy and attack with them one by one because here you do the same.
- The diplomacy is still a primitive excel table. You'd think during all those 11 years after SMAC they would get the hint.

The few things I like so far are natural wonders and the ability to capture enemy settlers instead of just killing them. Policies are meh because they have only pros to them when you upgrade them, no cons (apart from another policy being locked).

But overall so far it looks like "they brought civ to the masses" indeed.
 

ChristofferC

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,515
Location
Thailand
I've played through the demo a couple of times but it's too early to say much about the game yet. All I can say so far is that graphics are worse than CivIV and the economic model is very different from CivIV. It's all about happiness and money now. Also, the UI sucks monkey balls and the diplomacy is a black box.

I'm surprised there's no Real Demo(tm) out on the torrent sites yet. I need that to make a real evaluation.

Also, Skyway you can surprise attack your opponents if you have an open borders agreement with them. Your unit stay within their borders when you declare war. Or so I've heard.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
ChristofferC said:
Also, Skyway you can surprise attack your opponents if you have an open borders agreement with them. Your unit stay within their borders when you declare war. Or so I've heard.
Pfft. That isn't the same as in previous Civs (and it isn't about surprise attacking). In them after a while when countries already have formed borders you may often run into such situation where you need to move your units just a square or two through another country's territory into your own (or another one). Basically a single turn job. In those Civs this didn't start a war however impacted the relations with that country in not a good way (and get you a declaration of war if you were an asshole about doing that) - but other countries were even giving you those 2-3 turns to move your forces away. Now (and in Civ4) it's either a war or trying to get mutual open borders which is silly when you just need a single turn to move your forces.
They could've at least do something like you paying for a passage with something.

Saying all that I think Civ5 can still be enjoyed if you want Panzer General with the strong element of 4X, but as Civ game it doesn't quite live up to its name.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
Good news for you Grunker, automate worker is in. And since the improvements system is simpler than in civ 4 the workers probably wont fuck it up...
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Another dumbing down - the cities can fire two squares away? WTF? I just drove away barbarian attack without even trying
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
herostratus said:
Good news for you Grunker, automate worker is in. And since the improvements system is simpler than in civ 4 the workers probably wont fuck it up...

I only use automated workers in LAN-games to accelerate, and there's an agreement among the players that it's compulsory, so how good it works doesn't really affect me ;)

But if Skyway isn't just doing his usual bitching I'm a sad panda. I played through the demo one and besides the tech-tree I didn't really see all the dumbing down he did.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
There is more and more dumbing down as I go. Turns out I was right about cities back then (except it's even worse). Cities are way too OP. No wonder I drove barbarian attack away so easily - looks like cities can take on 4-5 units alone effectively preventing them (cities) from being captured in the early game - the expansion phase - before you get any real siege weapons. Obviously this was done so "masses" won't cry and baaawww about possible enemy ITZkriegs in early games because they never cared about defences (which you don't really need now).
Also making cities prosper is all too easy now. I didn't even care about managing them (just churn out military units and workers) yet already had golden age and is one of the leading nations. Way. Too. Easy.
Back in Civ2 and Civ3 I had to struggle to have the same right away.

Also bad thing about purchasing units is that it doesn't affect the production in any way. You may order an archer to build and after he is half built you just purchase a fighter (which appears right away), yet it doesn't affect production of archer in any way. Just have a steady gold income and you can have a more or less zerg in no time.

More than anything this game right now makes me want to fire up Civ2 or Civ3 or even SMAC and play through them.

As I've said - maybe if you'll look at it as an inclined * General - it will be one. But as a Civ it's decline. I still keep playing and trying to really like Civ5 (in a "good for what it is" way) but every thing that makes 4X - 4X is simplified and made easier here.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
7,269
See, I like the cities being able to defend themselves. Sieges take some work now, instead of just waltzing in. The economy is dumbed down, but I really don't get how you can say combat isn't improved. The predicted results are not the actual results, they just give the most likely outcome. I've had major victories turn into minor defeats on numerous occasions, and vice versa. Moreover, new units seem (and are) significantly stronger than their previous incarnations now. A swordsman is orders of magnitude stronger than a spearman. Also, considering how the game is laid out with one unit per square, the bitching about archers/cities attacking more than one square away is getting really tiresome. Without something like that, what would the benefit be to having archers in the first place?

At it's core, it's still a Civ game, and not my favorite one at that. Some changes are for the better, some for the worse, and some are meh. Still, if you like Civ games, you'll like this (unless you're one of the one people I've ever met that preferred Civ III to all of the others).
 

BearBomber

Scholar
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
566
- The combat outcome is being predicted for you before it even started. There is no small random chance of victory being added anymore. You just look at the handholding message that predicts everything and decide whether to attack or not.

What's wrong with that? Luck factor added nothing to the gameplay.
 

ChristofferC

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,515
Location
Thailand
BearBomber said:
- The combat outcome is being predicted for you before it even started. There is no small random chance of victory being added anymore. You just look at the handholding message that predicts everything and decide whether to attack or not.

What's wrong with that? Luck factor added nothing to the gameplay.
Yeah, less luck involved in combat = more strategic.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
MetalCraze said:
I'm playing the demo now (with turn counter disabled) and so far it looks like Civ5 maybe the worst, most dumbed down Civ to date.

- ZOCs are non-existent for all but enemy units, units still can pass through each other
- The retarded "declare war to move into the territory of another country" is still there, while the same doesn't apply to the territory of city states
- The economy was dumbed down, so far careful planning of where to put your population to work is not there
- The relations with city-states are extremely primitive. Basically the game forces you to give a locked amount of gold (you have no choice what to give yourself) to improve relations with them and not much else.
- Tech-tree is now smaller (note that I'm not talking about medieval-modern techs which are not there due to the demo limitations)
- The combat outcome is being predicted for you before it even started. There is no small random chance of victory being added anymore. You just look at the handholding message that predicts everything and decide whether to attack or not.
- Units still have a single "strength" stat for everything incl. damage/defences/hp
- Speeding up production is dumbed down. You now either purchase a unit for a full price (and it appears in your city instantly instead of waiting for another turn - another dumbing down, basically you can churn out defences for the city each turn they are killed if you have gold) or don't purchase anything at all. No you can't just pay what you have to speed up the production.
- The combat itself is not an improvement. Same shit, different name. You will achieve the exactly same "depth" if you'll just put one unit per square around enemy and attack with them one by one because here you do the same.
- The diplomacy is still a primitive excel table. You'd think during all those 11 years after SMAC they would get the hint.

The few things I like so far are natural wonders and the ability to capture enemy settlers instead of just killing them. Policies are meh because they have only pros to them when you upgrade them, no cons (apart from another policy being locked).

But overall so far it looks like "they brought civ to the masses" indeed.

From Your points I like what they changed.
-ZoC are a retarded concept implemented only as a poor mans logisitcs. IRL armies often missed each other, there were raiders and commandos, whole warfare before the times of mass conscription was devoid of frontlines. +
- Another +, no sane ruler would allow military access to someone who is not his ally. Wanna cross = declare war is very realistic considering the devastation that armies brought.
- Econoy in Civ was always dumb as a brick so nothign changed here. Balancing improvements should eb a good thing too, no more cottage spam.
- Easier diplomacy = less exploitation of thew dumb AI. Seems reasonable.
- Smaller tech tree means longer research for each tech? If yes then another +, I was sick and tired of my units becoming obsolete on the way to enemy. Besides most of old techs made no sense.
- Combat outcome was always predicted for You only with element of randomness. Dont know about this one, must see for myself.
- Strenght as one stat for everything is perfectly fine and reasonable, division with 50% of its force wont fight as effectively as one with 100%. Different untis are made different with max strenght, reasonable too. Having attacka nd defence stats was retarded.
- Yea, mercenaries, ever heard of them? You know those gusy that won wars up to XIX century? Finally in.
- Combat is as bad as it was always, no difference for me
- I dont really understand, diplomacy in SMAC was as retarded as in other Civs. Actually limiting options is very sensible since they were anyway nearly useless.

So overall looks very good.
 

ChristofferC

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,515
Location
Thailand
And it's too early to say that the economy is dumbed down. It's different, but I think there is some depth to it if you scratch on the "streamlined" surface.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
Well, gotta admit that from what Skyway wrote, this looks a bit :bland: :crappy: :dull: . To play the Devil's advocate, I guess the reason they wanted cities to defend themselves was that normally one of the first things you always had to do after establishing a city was to put some sort of an archer or other defensive unit inside, so now it's just automatic.
 

Silellak

Cipher
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,198
Location
Tucson, AZ
Elwro said:
Well, gotta admit that from what Skyway wrote, this looks a bit :bland: :crappy: :dull:
Do yourself a favor and try no to base your opinion of a game - any game - around what Skyway writes.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom