Someone please tell me what was so wrong with armies that had to be yanked out? Napoleon almost conquered Europe with one army. Germany almost conquered the eastern hemisphere with three and the US still holds a two-and-a-half armies doctrine. How can a turn-based game be called Civilization unless one can emulate, well, a real civilization? Building an army, seasoning it on minor conflicts and then going for the enemy's capital was one of the most fun parts of any Civilization game. Why Sid, why?
You can still do that. I dont understand the point ...
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO LAUNCH INTO SPACE YET CANNOT CLIMB MOUNTAINS
Movement should be hindered by rough terrain. Units that have 3 or 4 moves on the plains should not be expected to do more than 1 or 2 on a mountain, right? Well, no. Mountains seem to be those magical places no unit can climb or pass through. And I cannot see how this makes for more complicated strategic decisions than timing your movements, claiming the high ground and having a bonus for elevated artillery?
Thats been the case like forever?! In Civ4 you couldnt climb mountains either. And i guess it would be a major project to move an army over the mountains in RL.
A major issue for me, this was what really ruined the game. For some unfathomable reason units cannot be stacked. A worker can coexist with a military unit but that's it. Artillery and shock-cavalry are very vulnerable to attacks and (with the new hexagon layout) one would need ...six defensive units to protect a single artillery battery.
As a result, units keep getting on each other's way (especially when ordered to move for distances that require more than a turn), they refuse to even pass through friendly units (!) and the "tactical" considerations that result from this are trivial. And whenever besieging an enemy city, one has to endlessly maneuver his units around it (while exposed to its bombardment) whereas wounded units are never easy to withdraw.
You cannot even garrison more than a single unit within a city. Not that it would make a difference, since the garrisoned unit is not automatically awaken to fight back when the city is under attack(!), the city is left to defend itself.
So its better to build a stack of doom, auto march it to the enemy and shout LuLz at your comp when you faceroll the AI. Yeah that is clearly a better design choice.
Opinions defer. I for one find the new system much better. Also he does'nt seems to have a grasp of basic mechnics of the game. A garrisoned city adds his strenght to the city strength. Thats a huge bonus most times.
CAN YOU COMMAND WITHOUT A...CENTRAL COMMAND?
The economy is nose-diving into the red and you want to reduce the percentage going into research for a while? The fickle people of your civilization are unhappy and you want to placate them by increasing their entertainment allocation? You have discovered conscription and you want to upgrade all your musketeers into recruits? Well, TOUGH LUCK! There is not central command screen to do so. Only advisers that you have to thank for annoying you.
You have zero control of both your cities resource distribution and your national economy. And units can be upgraded only one at a time.
You still can allocate city production. Again he fails at basic mechanics.
With Units i guess he is right ... but did he see the Unit Window, where finding and selecting is easy?
NO FREE EYE-CANDY IN THIS UNIVERSE. NOT EVEN A STALE ONE.
The game does look new and polished and the units are well designed but not cutting edge and not without a steep hardware price. If you expect anything comparable to STARCRAFT II crispiness you will be disappointed - at my 1280x1024 resolution it is not easy to discern roads from railroads. The system I am running my copy consists of a P7 920 on a MSI Eclipse with 3GB of RAM and an ASUS nVIDIA GTX-260. Even with an 18-months old PC in a WinXP environment (I refuse to forgo my game collection for Win7), apparently I cannot even try the highest DX9 settings (the game crashes at launch) but I managed to optimize them with a mix of high and medium. Even then, whenever I scroll to a different location of the map, I can see the image fleshing out, just like zooming in a Google-Earth map. So one can only wonder: why should one need a Cray to run a Civilization game at full?
I dont have a Cray, but Civ5 runs pretty good for me. So there are technical issues. Granted. But he makes it sound like everyone has it. Thats not the case.
I had two CTD. That sucks. But it does not mean every one has CTD's. I also get constant CTD's if i run League of Legends in the background. There are just some things they could not have tested beforehand.
STEAM OF WAR
The game requires OnLine Activation (and rumored perpetual reactivation every few days) and has to be tied to a STEAM account. Effectively this means that the game is a piece of rentware the buyer never really owns and yet it is sold at full price. I realize that to some people this may not be a serious issue so, in case you are wondering, I deducted a single star from my overall rating of the game because of its DRM scheme. To every other gamer however, you can now make an informed decision.
When did he buy his last game. All you are getting nowadays is a license to play the game. A one time online activation is quite tame all things considered.
Its connection to Steam is hit or miss. Many love it, many hate it.
This was a major disappointment. I never though I'd say this but I while playing the latest Civilization game I caught myself wondering if they would ever make...CALL TO POWER III.
New gamers, steer clear of this mess, this is NOT what a Civilization game plays like.
Seasoned gamers, we know better than to call this a Civilization game.
Sorry Sid, EPIC FAIL.
Ah well, damning a game for not understanding basic mechanics, that are clearly pointed out everywhere, is very classy. Bonus points for being an arrogant jerk that thinks he is an seasoned gamer and believes he speaks for the whole community.