Civ V++

Korea should totally have a 'StarCraft: Brood War' wonder

Civ V’s one of those games I’ve somewhat taken my eye off since launch. While lovely to point my ocular organs at and with a natty new take on Civly combat, it seemed to lack the identity and variety of the evergreen Civ IV. Importantly, however, it’s apparently been a continuing slow-burn success, given the steady trickle of new patches and DLC over the last year or so. Latest to the latter’s ranks is the introduction of Korea as a playable faction, and a clutch of new wonders.

Here’s Korea, which is geared towards rapid scientific and technological advancement:

“Have fun, and stay civilised.” Ok then!

And here’s Wonders of the Ancient World, which rather than being a Brian Cox documentary introduces the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Statue of Zeus and the Temple of Artemis to the early game, as well as a new scenario.

These are both due out on Friday, for £2.99/$4.99 each.

THE QUESTION: anyone still playing Civ V on a regular basis? Has it changed significantly since launch? Does it warrant a long, loving revisit?


  1. Jockie says:

    The broken/dumb AI killed any longevity on Civ V for me. They don’t have any plan B and are prone to trying to move unguarded troops across large bodies of water.

    • Symitri says:

      Broken/dumb AI?


      But seriously, I agree. Once you know how to exploit the system, it becomes too easy. And when you try to play in an original manner and ignore those exploits, you have neighbours who will attack you for no reason other than because they can.

      I just wish the multiplayer had been incorporated better.

    • Gnoupi says:

      I agree, it’s really annoying to have them declare war not only for no reason, but also with unrealistic means.
      Often you have the guy who is on the other side of the map declaring war. By the time his units get to you, he is already proposing to negotiate peace. Or he will declare war with his three units and just crash them on your cities.

      But the biggest problem of this edition remains…. “Please wait”.
      You can’t play on a map bigger than small without having to spend 1 minute waiting for the next turn, in the end game (when you discover the whole map) (which makes me think that the AI is only a bunch of numbers without actual cities or units before you actually see them for the first time).

    • Kelron says:

      I never did enjoy Civ against AI much, in any version.

    • Gnoupi says:

      True that it always felt a bit silly, compared for example to the one in GalCiv2.
      I remember trying GalCiv2 after playing Civ4. I was used to playing with culture, mostly to expand my territory this way.

      In Civ4, it only adds a minus to the relationship, like “-1 : there are tensions on our borders”
      In GalCiv2, the first time I did that with the stronger, military civ, I got a warning. Then another. Then they decided to show me that they were tired to tolerate my eating their territory, especially that I had no suitable army, and destroyed my empire.

      In Civ4, I wanted to be peaceful, I was offering presents to the others and hings were all good.
      In GalCiv2, I tried the same. After my second or third offering, the militaristic civ got tired of my vain attempts to suck up, and even got offended. I had nothing to threaten them with anyway, and a bad diplomacy score in general, so they destroyed me.

      Not saying that GalCiv2 is the pinnacle of diplomatic gameplay, but it was anyway refreshing to see something else than a basic “pros/cons score” way of handling diplomacy

    • Larser69 says:

      Yup, I hated the AI so much.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Your descriptions of GalCiv sound like what happens to me in Civ a lot of the time. The ai isn’t the best, but it’s definetely not as stupid as you are suggesting.

    • Nalano says:

      There’s only one reason they ever declare war: They think they have more troops than you.

      There’s only one reason they ever fail to declare war: They think you have more troops than them.

      So long as you have military hegemony, you can be as much a dick to your neighbors as you want, they’ll always be happy during diplomatic negotiations. Conversely, you can be as forthright and the best neighbor ever, but if you don’t have a big army, they’ll invade you without fail.

    • Lord Byte says:

      Play Thal’s mod, it really makes the AI a lot more clever, and not declare war for no reason! I’ve gotten many beatings by the AI now, and not because I wasn’t prepared, but because I got out-maneuvered and outplayed! He also fixes a lot of balance issues and wonders and policies are a lot more balanced now!
      link to

      Sadly you cannot use mods in multiplayer.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      @Nalano: I’d say that’s an oversimplification of the game. The AI has a tendency to buddy up, and I’ve found that, while individual Civs behave in the often baffling fashion described above–which isn’t really any different from how they behaved in Civ4–these alliances are a real danger. I always know that things are going to get worse for me in about 20 turns or so when I see an uptick in AI-to-AI research pacts, as that heralds that I’m out of the loop. It’s hard to exploit for your own benefit as well, as once you get two other civs to follow your lead, you’ve basically played matchmaker for future enemies. Not only that, but you’ve hastened the inevitable decline towards animosity that always occurs in Civ because they’ll have a better grasp of what you’re doing and what you’re capable of.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I actually had more problems with random wars in Civ IV. Isabella especially would declare war but not be able to send any troops across the massive ocean for twenty turns. The problem I have with Civ V is the watered down and sparse wonders. I especially missed building the Internet.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      Actually, you raise a good point. I think that the Civ V AI is less varied from leader to leader. Yeah, Napoleon and Montezuma tend to have more troops on hand at any given moment, but they’re not appreciably more aggressive than any other leaders. Compare to Civ IV where Montezuma in particular was a warmongering bastard who almost always needed to be dealt with before he got out of hand. The only leader who stands out to me is Suleiman, who seems to consistently be kind of a bumbler who never scores highly and rarely has the capability to win a war.

      I also agree that the wonders don’t have the oomph they did in Civ IV. I’ve found that the trick to getting the most out of them is to stack wonders in cities to hyperspecialize them and to build wonders which stack with and/or complement your social policy selections. It’s actually got a very healthy RPG streak in that way.

    • Nalano says:

      @ Drinking with Skeletons

      I dunno. Alliance-stacking or not, denouncements and declarations of friendships have never really affected much of the flow.

      I noticed that the AI tends to seek out requests for research agreements largely on whether they can afford them, and less on whether the ones they’re agreeing with are potential rivals. So long as they have the money in their coffers, they’ll rarely ever say no.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      Yes, it largely depends on the money they have, but that’s how their little cliques start. They won’t deal with civs they dislike, regardless of the benefit, so I find that their deals signify the formation of long-term problems.

  2. StingingVelvet says:

    I really like the UI and the greater chess game style of combat, but as noted above the broken AI really bummed me out in early games. They never crossed water, they never properly invaded, they just kind of sat there. The only challenge was balancing my money, combat was a joke. Maybe it has been fixed by now through patches but people tell me no, it hasn’t.

    I can’t believe so many reviewers, including strategy buffs like Dan Stapleton in PC Gamer, gave this game such a high score considering it was outright broken at launch where AI was concerned.

    • Jumwa says:

      Right there with you on those points. I was amazed to see so many reviewers laud and praise this game so highly. It simply wasn’t deserving of it. It came out so buggy and underwhelming. LAN play is utterly broken, for instance, it slows down our PCs something terrible. We have to go set up a locked online match when we wish to play together, which isn’t often, as my partner has refused to play the game anymore since late December of last year.

      Since then I actually tried a game where it was just me versus a single AI opponent and max city states. I was at permanent war with the AI because that was preferable to dealing with their fickle natures, and the city-states are the only form of computer controlled thing in the game you can get along with at all under any understandable terms.

      It wasn’t terribly fun, regardless. Which is a shame, as I do love all the new additions they’ve made to the game. I was saddened to see so much taken out from Civilization IV, I think they oversimplified some stuff and removed some delightful features needlessly (especially when they have Revolutions as their big simple version for new players).

      But the hex grids, the one-unit-per-tile thing and all the other little changes? Brilliant. The rest of the game just isn’t good enough to lift it up.

      Oh, but in the latest patch they did at least fix that issue where everyone remembered your “wrongs” for the rest of eternity. It was quite annoying being in the year 2200 AD and having China still pissed at you for being a “War monger” because you went to war in the year 3000 BC at their request to save them from Mongolia. They do finally forget over time your “grave injustices” like that now. But the AI is still really arbitrary and random.

  3. Heliocentric says:

    Why does this feel like I’m posting on a total war titles comment thread.

    I don’t care about baubles, is the AI able to play the game, is diplomacy possible to be meaningfully understood? Have they managed to get Spock to voice the tech tree? Can spearmen kill tanks?

    • Silk Degrees says:

      No Spock to voice the tech tree sadly. This is one of the reasons I go back to Civ IV sometimes! :P

      I play it from time to time. I’ve taken to playing in strategic overlay mode. It’s like a giant moving Oil Painting!!

  4. CaspianRoach says:

    In my days, we called these DLCs patches.

    • The Colonel says:

      So depressing. Why fix the game when you can still get people to fork out £5 for a tiny bit of extra content? I’d actually happily pay £2.99 for a patch that fixed the AI (even up to the level of Civ IV AI) so that the game is finally worth playing. DLC can totally fuck off though.

    • MSJ says:

      Whoa, whoa, you’ve been PAYING for patches all this time?! You guys got scammed. My Civ 5 gets free patches, all the paid stuff are extra factions you can play.

  5. Mike says:

    I just bought it in the Steam Sales. Enjoyable enough, but then again I was always fairly bad at Civ so a lighter AI suits me.

  6. MessyPenguin says:

    Whats the top picture Is there a giant stompy robot in CIV V?

    • Dragatus says:

      At first I was slightly outraged that they put a giant stompy robot into a Cvilization game, but after a few games I grew to like them. They are ridiculously overpowered and ideal for quickly bringing the game to a finish. And once you get to the modern age every turn feels like forever which really makes you want to bring it to an end.

  7. CJ says:

    I just want them to get the multiplayer fixed. At the moment you have the ‘Hotseat’ option, or you don’t play multiplayer, as the internet/Lan play is horribly broken. This means you have to stick with Civ 4 for multiplayer.
    It’s a real shame, as the hex board + 1 unit per hex makes for a game that is, in my view, much better than Civ 4.

    • Gnoupi says:

      What do you mean by broken, btw? Personally I manage to host and join games.
      The only problem is the turn time, which reaches 1 minute, 1 minute and a half in the end game, though…

    • Symitri says:

      Multiplayer doesn’t work for me either. It has to do with having an external router that I can’t configure properly with a static IP and therefore allow Civ through it. Plenty of other games work fine but once in a while, a game like Civ 5 or Borderlands will come along and the only way to ‘fix’ it is by establishing a Hamachi connection to those you want to play with. I believe this works with Civ 5, although it probably isn’t worth the trouble unless you’re in it for the long haul.

    • PiP999 says:

      Yep the MP is the only reason why I bought this game on Steam sale and unfortunately it’s also my biggest gripe. My friends and I played a match online with the 4 of us against 8 AI players. Everything went smooth until about turn 150. After that the game lagged so much it was unbearable. It would literally take about 2 minutes for the AI to finish their turns and another 2 minutes until we were able to control our units on the next turn. (Seems that 8 players (human + AI) is the maximum you can play on MP and still have a semi-decent experience)

      The other problem with the AI is that in MP they can’t do anything but declare war. We played on Prince difficulty and the AI would lack all diplomatic skills. Bismarck wouldn’t propose a peace treaty even when he was down to a single city with no developed tiles or troops :(

    • Toothball says:

      I’d very much like to see the rest of the multiplayer options restored, primarily the ability to save multiplayer games. I almost always play this at a friend’s house, and we ended up losing the first few games we tried to play when the Auto saving overwrote our previous progress. We’ve tried keeping backups since then, but have still come back to find centuries of progress missing. Quite infuriating to see that the game makes the directories for these save files but doesn’t bother using them.

    • Highstorm says:

      And still no option for animations in multiplayer, right?

    • TheMerricat says:

      You can save multiplayer, it’s just not in the UI. I’ve not played it in months, like others the other ‘brokeness’ of MP drove me off of wanting to play it long distance with my brother. But you can save.

      Hit the normal hotkey combo for saving (cntl-s?) and save from there.

      The only other issue is LOADING. You have to go into your save folder and rename the save you just made so it has the same prefix as the autosaves and move it to the same folder, in order to be able to load the game from the hosting screen.

      Civ 5’s implementation & it’s DLC is evidence to me that Civilization is becoming just another ‘franchise’ as opposed to a work of love.

  8. Ertard says:

    I like Civ V a lot, but I must as well join in the choir of the laughable AI. They’re just not that much of a challenge, and they feel completely retarded in their decision making. I still play it in hotseat with my girlfriend though, and it’s an absolutely excellent game for that., even though hotseat is littered with bugs and slows down to a crawl come the modern age.

    I just wish Alpha Centauri 2 could get made with hexes, slightly less complex (like Civ V) and a shiny coat of paint. And AI that knows what the hell it’s doing of course.

  9. kristian says:

    I don’t think Firaxis even wants to fix the game. It’s generating profit i guess. Civ IV is what i still play, as it still is far superior on all other ways than the graphics engine. Also it starts to be fast enough to play on laptops, Civ V is completely unplayable on a laptop.

    • Gnoupi says:

      I only wish Civ4 would have the non-stackable units, and the cities actually able to defend themselves.

    • MSJ says:

      I can play it on my laptop (Geforce 9300M).

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      Non-stackable units is one of the (many) things that ruins Civ 5, IMO. Managing dozens of individual units instead of a few stacked armies is a chore, especially if you’re playing on a landmass with limited space. And your economy tanks if you build too many roads to help alleviate these movement issues.

      And that’s not to mention the AI is totally incapable of shuffling and positioning its units optimally.

      But by far the biggest problem with the game is ICS (infinite city spam), a chronic CIv problem that Civ4 managed to kill, only to have it return in this crappy sequel.

    • Nalano says:

      ICS sounds like the China way of taking over the world. Kinda hard not to do in a strategy game, tho. Once you expand more than everybody, who has the production or population to stop you?

    • kristian says:

      @MSJ: Really!? i’m on 9600M GT and it’s unplayable. wonder if there’s been something wrong with my macbook pro all along.

  10. Xercies says:

    That’s Amazing

  11. PeteC says:

    I’ve lost interest in this game now which is a shame as I’m a huge fan of the previous games.

    Extra civs as DLC isn’t going to bring me back to it but a full blown expansion that adds new game mechanics might. Not sure this is ever going to happen though as bitesize DLC seems to be more profitable for them.

  12. Velvetmeds says:

    I just bought this one week ago and i have to say i’m addicted. I loved Civ III but sadly i missed Civ IV, which might explain why i’m enjoying it more than most people that came from the fourth game. Either way, i really like it.

  13. TormDK says:

    I still play Civ 5 from time to time to get a good turn based builder fix.

    I like the patches that they have rolled out, especially the social policies (Although I still think Honour needs work compared to the two other start policies) and the changes to city walls and upgrades. Also the whole resource buildings got an overhaul, and Stone as a basic resource was added.

    I’ve bought all DLC simply because I could, and mostly because they added the danish as a playable Civ, something us long time viking-wannabies have lusted for in the Civ series.

  14. pazmacats says:

    Not playing the game anymore. The patches didn’t do anything. AI is still completely braindead and behaves like the avg dota mob.
    Patches modified the variables for the player mainly. So the rules have changed (to make several effective strategies impossible), the game is still the same. Gets boring really fast. Just like driving in a really fancy sportscar with no motor.

  15. Bhazor says:

    “THE QUESTION: anyone still playing Civ V on a regular basis? Has it changed significantly since launch? Does it warrant a long, loving revisit?”

    No the real question is “Have they made Fall From Heaven III yet?”. Because I honestly can’t play vanilla civ again after playing Fall From Heaven II.

    • d32 says:

      They haven’t and they probably won’t as The Main Guy is working on Elemental: War of Magic currently.

  16. Daniel Klein says:

    My main problem is still that there is no non-simultaneous multiplayer (everyone moves at once = whoever clicks first has an advantage = stupid hectic game) and no mod support in multiplayer (meaning simple-to-fix imbalances aren’t simple to fix at all).

  17. cairbre says:

    I must try it again sometimes I see some of my steam friends playing it and think oh yeah must give that another go.

  18. Carra says:

    I played another match to go for a cultural victory two months ago.

    Civilization the kind of game that I get out every year or so and play a game that lasts a few days.

  19. UncleLou says:

    I can’t say I am noticing any difference in intelligence between Civ IV and Civ V AI, but then I am absolutely no Civ “powergamer”. A difficulty one or two notches above the default one is more than enough for me. I also can’t say I am finding the diplomacy any more or less convincing than in the other Civ games – particularly after the patches which reveal what the AI thinks of you.

    All in all, I am enjoying Civ V a lot, and I can’t go back to the unit stacks of earlier Civs,

  20. BobsLawnService says:

    The AI has improved so if that is what is holding you back from dipping your toes in the water than I say go ahead. The diplomacy can still be annoying though.

    Also, I think that it is time for a nice meaty expansion that adds a few extra gameplay mechanics. Civilization V just doesn’t have any legs with me. I’ve completed the game four or five times and I just feel like it has nothing more to give.

  21. BenLeng says:

    Actually Civ V is the ONLY game I play regularly. It definitely has it’s weaknesses but the improvements (policies system, Hex combat etc) are so nice i can’t go back to civ IV. I’m a regular visitor to and really am a bit put off by all the fanboy hate that’s bubbling up in every other thread there. Is Civ V perfect? No. But none of it’s predecessors really was. Am I enjoying the heck out of it? Hell yes.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      Absolutely agree with you. No offense to everyone, but Civ IV–which is great, and was my gateway into the series–already exists. We’d all be pissed if Civ V was identical.

  22. omgitsgene says:

    Civ V has improved the AI and the balancing significantly since I bought the title near launch. I have a tendency to play heavily just after every patch and the computer puts up a much better fight than it used to. It isn’t perfect by any means, but I have yet to find AI in one of these games that won through cleverness and not cheats/unfair benefits in production. I would recommend reviewing this again when they really start to knock out the multiplayer more.

    • Zenicetus says:

      I have yet to find AI in one of these games that won through cleverness and not cheats/unfair benefits in production

      Have you played GalCiv2? I found that game’s AI very challenging at the difficulty setting where the AI and player are evenly balanced, with neither getting any bonuses or penalties. The AI could win just by micro-managing the economy settings better than the player.. And since econ and expansion were basically the core of the game, with no tactical combat, that allowed the AI to beat the player. Or at least it beat me, fairly often, until I got the hang of things. I could still be beaten if the resource layout on a random map wasn’t in my favor.

      GalCiv was the best AI I’ve seen so far in a strategy game. I think that was partly due to a design that was really optimized for AI. Too many strategy games overreach by including things that sound like fun for the player, but are impossible to program the AI to handle within the development timeframe. That’s basically what made Empire: Total War such a mess. It had a great design, from the player’s point of view, but the AI just couldn’t deal with the world map.

  23. Kolchak says:

    According to Steam Stats it’s one of the more popular Steam games with 20k players at peak. So yes people are still playing.

    I love Civ but I’ve always lacked the time to play it regularly. Just like Civ 4 I’ll be going back to this game on a bimonthly or so basis. Also yes the AI definitely needs more tuning up. If that was done I’d say Civ 5 would be on par with Civ 4.

  24. mrjackspade says:

    Still waiting for multiplayer support of mods and custom maps…

  25. Scatterbrainpaul says:

    I picked it up in the sale a few weeks back, well worth the tenner, and have sunk 20 hours into it

    I agree with the broken AI complaints, but nevertheless it isn’t a show stopper

    One conclusion i’ve recently come to is that Gandhi is a C*nt

  26. rocketman71 says:

    I’m not buying it until they fix the bugs and the AI, add PBEM support, and pack the game with ALL the stupid DLCs in one package.

    Also, a DLC comprised of just three wonders (yeah, and one scenario)?. What kind of idiots does Take 2 think we are?. What have you done with Firaxis, you bastards?!?

    • ancienttoaster says:

      Can’t speak to your other requests, but PBEM support is in the game and works great. It’s a little kludgy—emailing Hotseat save files back and forth—but I’ve been playing a game of it for the last week with no issues.

  27. Drinking with Skeletons says:

    Civ V is much more of a big picture game than Civ IV. You don’t have to fiddle around with individual cities nearly as much as before. The automatic specialization options for cities work much better than before, and I find that in each game my cities have more character and are more focused.

    The social policy system doesn’t allow for the on-the-fly flexibility of the civics from Civ IV, but that just means that the decisions have meaning. Additionally, there aren’t any huge imbalances between the choices, and Firaxis has proven willing to completely change them in patches to make each one worthy of your consideration. Also, cultural victories aren’t as crushingly dull as they were in Civ IV.

    The city states are a pretty significant addition, and properly utilizing them can reap a variety of rewards, not least of which is an extra obstacle for enemies to deal with. I’ve found that allying myself with one or two well-positioned city states can make the difference between fending off an invasion or getting reamed.

    The AI is a recurring issue, but I don’t think it’s hugely different from what was in Civ IV. I imagine that many of the critics of the AI wouldn’t be so critical if this wasn’t the fifth game in a series that’s been popular for, what, twenty years or more? Is it even possible at this point in time to make an AI that can go toe-to-toe with someone who’s got a strong grasp of the series?

    I’m not a multiplayer man, myself–just too slow a series for me to have any desire to dive into that area–so I can’t comment on that.

    Obviously this is all subjective. All of the changes seemed to be made with me in mind–gotta love it when that happens!–so the only reason that I don’t play more of it is that I’ve sunk so many hours into Civ IV. At the end of the day, this is still Civ, and for all of the changes this title has, it’s sometimes hard to get beyond the fact that you’ve basically done this for hundreds of hours already.

  28. TsunamiWombat says:

    Please tell me the national leader is Kim Jung Il.

  29. Hensler says:

    With the in-game mod browser, I don’t know how they haven’t added multiplayer mod support yet. It seemed like they really wanted to support mods this time out.

  30. Pathetic Phallacy says:

    Who has time to play Civ when there is Europa to be played?

  31. mwoody says:

    For me, it was the DLC that killed it. Every time I go back to it, eager to play a good ol’ game of Civ, I mke the mistake of checking the Steam page for the game. And there’s a list there of all the playable civilizations that I won’t be enjoying because they’ve been torn off and sold for a separate pittance. It just takes all the fun out of it.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      I agree that there’s a certain air of mercenary greed about it. However, DLC allows them to bring in ongoing money to fund balancing & patching rather than gambling on a big expansion to fund their work. The pricing is kind of outrageous, but at least you don’t have to buy it.

      My bigger concern is that there won’t be significant additions to the actual mechanics of the game. They’ve added new buildings in their patches, yes, but what about religion? Espionage? Random events? New social policies? Anything? I can accept the DLC, but if they’re not taking that money and putting it towards expanding the underlying mechanics, then why continue to crank it out?

    • Zenicetus says:

      Yeah, on the one hand…. I’m in favor of having the “civ completionists” in the player base fund continuing development and patching of the core game. Nobody forces me to buy the DLC, and I’ve only picked up two of them, so far.

      On the other hand, the more DLC civs they trickle out, the harder it is to include certain sweeping changes, especially the one I’d like to see most — individualized tech trees. The big Achilles heel of the Civ series (for me, anyway) has always been the way all these supposedly diverse civs all plow through the same tech tree, so there are no truly unique strategies. The built-in attributes for each civ don’t do enough to take up the slack, because the extremely linear tech tree flattens everything out again. You end up fighting identical-looking armies, used in the same ways, no matter what civ you’re up against. At this point, with all these new DLC civs popping out all the time, I’m not holding out any hopes for a major expansion that would address this.

  32. fishy007 says:

    The game has become more polished since launch and several technical and gameplay bugs have been fixed. The game is not Civ IV and it’s a change of strategy for those accustomed to the older Civ games. As of now, I can’t see any gamebreaking bugs that would limit the enjoyment of the game.

    However, there are two glaring issues with the game. Firstly is the lack of ‘play by e-mail’. I remember reading about this feature in August 2010 and I’m *still* waiting for it to be implemented in ‘a future patch.’ The other issue is the constant bombardment of overpriced DLC. At $5-$7 a pop, the publisher is making a killing, but adding minimal content. In the old days, we’d get a box expansion with all these scenarios and maps for $25. As it is, I’m passing up the paid DLC and using user-created mods.

    • ancienttoaster says:

      Actually, PBEM support exists, tho it’s a bit kludgy. Essentially, you set up a hotseat game, then the first person takes their turn. After ending their turn, save the game from the “next player” screen. Then use alt-f4 to exit the game, email the save file to the next player, and so on.

  33. MythArcana says:

    Civ IV with the production values of Civ V is what everyone wants. I fired this up last week after a long hiatus and the experience was semi-favorable…but I can’t help thinking of the direction this game could have taken for the better if they simply left some things the way they were.

    • GenBanks says:

      Civ IV with V’s production values would indeed be a good thing

  34. Morph says:

    I can barely believe people are paying so much each time for a new faction. I can understand say a bundle of 5 factions or new maps for £5. For £3 each? Who cares that much?

  35. ScubaMonster says:

    Civ 5 is fundamentally flawed. I would rather keep playing 4 than play that again.

  36. byjimini says:

    Bloody awful game. So slow and repetitive, and one unit-per-tile thing has ruined it, as the world fills up with units and no-one can move.

    Absolute tosh. It was the last time I ever pre-ordered a game, having been stung to the tune of £30 smackers after every review going gave it a glowing write-up.

  37. Out Reach says:

    Main problems are if you buy a DLC civ you can’t use it against other players online unless they have the civ as well.

    Also DLC wonders…. Wut :| Seriously that should have been free.

  38. Pheasant Plucker says:

    Not getting the hate for the AI at all.

    I’ve played every Civ since the very first, and number V now has the strongest AI of the series by far.

    I can only assume that those who are having a go at the AI either haven’t played it lately or play on a simple difficulty level.

    Civ 5 AI now rocks. Play a standard sized game at King or above and tell me it doesn’t you young whippersnappers!

  39. GenBanks says:

    I like Civ V. It’s got flaws, but two day ago I spent 11 hours straight playing it, and had fun. Lots of stuff has changed since release. Major things, like what certain buildings do. It’s definitely improving, and I’m really happy they’re keeping at it. Civ IV was good but everyone’s forgetting its flaws while they trip over themselves criticising Civ V.

  40. pipman3000 says:

    Do they add Civ specific unit graphics yet? (Like in BTS). Having all the Civs be a bunch of white guys except for their UUs kind of bums me out.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      No, they haven’t, and you are totally right that this feature needs to return. They should go further than before, though, and make sure that all of the units for every region is uniquely designed. A good example of what I mean would be to look at Rise of Nations, where South American knights were very, well, South American, despite that part of the world never having a knightly tradition.

  41. namad says:

    IV is just a better game than V