After fourteen hours or so with Civ V I’ve come away feeling a little disappointed and also a little stupid. Civ has always evaded me – I was too young to understand it when I played II, I didn’t like how it handled combat when I recently played IV, but going into V I thought it would finally click – and for a while I thought it had done, but in the end, well, I’m left with an overwhelming sense of apathy.

The new look and feel won me over initially – it’s extremely polished and slick. Big buttons fill the screen directing your attention to exactly where it needs to be. “A UNIT NEEDS ORDERS” a glowing, web 2.0 button screams. “A CITY NEEDS A NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT”. You can’t miss what you need to do and everything generally makes sense – high praise for a turn based game, a genre that’s notorious for complex and barely explained systems.
Often though you’re just waiting and wondering if, really, you should be doing something more involved – especially in the early game. The pace isn’t so much glacial but more stifled. Neptunes Pride is glacial in the way that you are waiting for something to happen and it’s tense, unnerving and you’re questioning yourself. Here you are clicking “next turn” 10 times in a row waiting for a construction to finish before you just choose something else to set off. And god help you if you’re not going for a conquest win (kill everybody) because then you aren’t even marching little armies around and smashing stuff up.
I’ve tried to dig deeper with Civ, to try and find what I should be doing other than clicking “next turn” and the only thing I’ve found is to go and have fights, but that’s not Civ – right? Winning through fighting is just an option I shouldn’t have to do it. Diplomacy then. Well it plain doesn’t work and it’s so sodding simplistic that it’s barely a surprise.

“Hey Germany ol’ buddy ol’ pal, I’ve just been attacked by the Romans, fancy helping me out?”
“Nein”
“Ok, can I have some cash to get some defences?”
“Nein”
“But we’ve been allied for centuries! I helped you out when you needed stuff!”
“Nein”
Message: Germany has declared war on you.
Diplomacy fails always, even trading is almost hopeless unless it’s initiated by the AI. Once I tried to trade a cotton supply for a wool supply (or something equally as arbitrary) with a very friendly nation. Would they do it? No, not unless I also supplied them with Gold, Marble and a fee. It was ridiculous and it wasn’t a one off. Unless the AI is initiating, you are rarely going to get an acceptable deal unless you have a huge army and are threatening to use it, and even then anything outside of trade is reduced to a binary answer.

It’s extra hard to make deals since you aren’t given any information that you can use or exploit. In the diplomacy screen in Total War you are given a plethora of information – who the faction you are speaking to is allied with, who they are at war with, their wealth, their army size. Here you get nothing apart from how the faction feels towards you which is mostly denoted by how far the camera is zoomed in on their face. “He hates me! Look at his eyebrows!”. Also factions will declare war on you with no prior hint, no provocation, and no ultimatum, so if you’re playing like Ghandi (actual Ghandi, not Nuclear Civilization Ghandi) you’re in for a tough, if not impossible, ride.
Fighting then is the only realistic way to progress – you not only skip the awful diplomacy but you get to march armies around that can blow things up. Also, as an aside, why is there no marching stuff around in the name of peace? I mean, to call on Total War again, that has people you can marry off, spies to send out, assassins, religious figures. You can structure your government, convert nations to your religion through force, and blockade trade routes – none of that here. If you think about it – this is more of a war game than Total War – and that’s titularly about War. Go figure. Yes, so, you march armies around – they don;t stack now, it’s one unit per tile – advance wars on a grand scale – and it works, but it’s a little simplistic.

Best tech wins. It’s unsurprising, and historically true – of course people with rifles are going to rinse through people with swords, but that doesn’t make for an exciting game. The best thing about turn based combat is the depth – to plan moves and manipulate rules through thought, not just “who has the biggest and most advanced army”. Essentially it becomes boring, a long process of stomp stomp stomp until you’ve crushed a city or nation, then it’s on to the next one in a constant war that barely raises your heart rate.
Maybe I was stupid to think that a new Civ would be the one for me – it’s gorgeous looking tiles appealing far beyond IVs dull visuals, and the hex based one-unit-per-tile structure enticing me into a deeper, almost advance wars combat. Unfortunately it never – it’s not complexity and tooth and nail maths, it’s sedate clicking of the “next turn” interspersed with some combat tactics now and again that are far too simplistic to care about. All the while I’ve been thinking that I’ve missed something with Civ, but if after fourteen hours I’m missing something, well I refuse to believe it’s my fault.



Right with you there, I never really got Civ 2, and I never touched another one. Though I think Civ fans like this a lot.
Never got on with strategy games as they confuse the simple fool I am. I therefore love Civ V. Sure the trading is AI lead, and diplomacy is simply about bribing the City-States a few moves before voting, and the trading is like trying to buy Monster Munch with Wotsits, but I love it and hug and kiss it all over and in return I get to bomb London.
(This may not be a recommendation)
I mentioned trading twice. Damn my enthusiasm and lack of proof reading.
I’m a huge fan of the series (somehow managing to get to grips with I & II despite my age, but despite being extremely excited for V, I’ve barely touched it. I found myself playing a uber-mod for IV before it came out and now V just seems overly simple. Pretty, but just lacking for me.
Man, I thought I was going to end up arguing in the comments. Maybe Civ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be after all.
@Kevin – have you tried total war (Medieval II especially)?
I was hoping this would be the ultimate time-sink for me. However, I got bored at 15 hours. It’s just so unbelievably slow. Multiplayer is unplayable, you need to plan for 2 hours minimum if the players are a bit decent. The AI is retarded beyond words, as described in the article. I’ve given up on Civ and am looking at Napoleon Total War now.
All the Civ fans I know are either disappointed by it or not interested. Most seem to want a revamp of Civ III, and some haven’t loved it since II.
Could you get one on here to tell us why? As in – why no interest, or why the disappointment, or why Civ III was so good?
Craig Lam asked me to reply to this since I mentioned that I preferred Civ III…
Civ III had a good flow where you had to choose between the “4x’s” of these games – “explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate”. Micro-management was perfect in Civ III (especially if you used the addon Civ Assist II which warns you about a city about to riot, among many other things). When you researched a tech, you felt like it really enabled you to do more (something I felt was missing from Civ IV). Most of all, with all the different Civs available to choose from, you felt like you were a part of history & interacting with great leaders.
You also had plenty of options on how you wanted to win the game, and all of them were pretty viable. Gaining resources was also well done – you can expand only so far and then you have to decide whether you wanted to invade a country to get their oil/iron/uranium, or give up a lot of money/resources/techs to get it.
Thanks, bra.
I’ve only played Civ II and my memory of it is somewhat hazy. I did play it to completion, but I never put in the time that others seemed to. I’m sort of disappointed that Civ 5 isn’t the best thing ever, though. By now it should be like that game* the main character plays in Iain Bank’s Complicity.
*looked it up and it is called Despot in the book
As someone who has played Civ I, Civ III, and Civ IV (and unfortunately, the AWFUL Civilization: Call to Power), I’ve been very interested in Civ V… but aside from the more commercial websites which always write glowing reviews, I’ve read a lot of negatives about Civ V. This review definitely makes me want to avoid Civ V if only because my favorite aspects of the game seem to be missing. There’s something about the feeling of developing relationships with other nations, while watching your empire grow through various means. If the only option is war or… war, why not just play Risk?
Here’s hoping that they release a patch that balances the game out. Until then, I’ll spend my time on Civ III (which remains my favorite).