4 days!
Add a month to that and you the Israeli release date.4 days!
7 for me :( damn EU release date.
Add a month to that and you the Israeli release date.4 days!
7 for me :( damn EU release date.
I'm going to give this a try as it seems to be a bit different to the previous games which never played more than once.Alpha Centauri was fantastic. So much better than the previous Civs. I really liked Civ 4 as well.
Which is curious because iI ove Alpha Centauri and it's basically the same game.
Anyone confirm that day 1 multiplayer will work? Will we be able to play over LAN? I am seriously considering taking Tuesday off to play, but I've had mixed results with Day 1 excitement.
This'll mean that you'll need everybody playing to own a copy of the game. Nobody's giving a clear answer as to whether it'll be LAN play using Steamworks, or if you'll be forced to connect online. :-\I don't understand why this is a problem, unless you live in a location without some kind of internet service?
Maybe he wants to have a game on the computers in his home without having to purchase additional copies?Unless something has changed, you can install the game from Steam on any computer you own. Hell I only bought one copy of Recettear but I installed it on my girlfriend's laptop and then switched steam to offline mode. She can play it fine. I assume Civ 5 will work with offline mode for single player, unless something has come out to say it won't?
forsaken is either being intentionally dense, or he was born less than twenty years ago, missing the era when it was normal to play one copy of a game on a LAN just as easily as you would play split-screen on a console.No, I remember that era. I also know that era is more or less dead. You know the game will be using steamworks, so obviously it will check your CD keys when you hit their matchmaking server. I'm sure someone will eventually come out with a crack for it either way.
Ah, well yes you need to buy multiple copies to play multiplayer online. Why wouldn't you?
forsaken is either being intentionally dense, or he was born less than twenty years ago, missing the era when it was normal to play one copy of a game on a LAN just as easily as you would play split-screen on a console.No, I remember that era. I also know that era is more or less dead. You know the game will be using steamworks, so obviously it will check your CD keys when you hit their matchmaking server. I'm sure someone will eventually come out with a crack for it either way.
At least a lot of games still have hotseat, right?
...Wait, no. Simultaneous turns in Civ5 huh. Dammit. Well, that should still work as long as it's "everyone gives orders then they all happen at once".
So it's better to ally them than to assimilate them? And speaking of diplomacy, has there been any changes to the diplomacy system?I don't have any hard facts, but from the gameplay videos I have seen...
1. I believe razing the city nets you loot/pillage golds and that's it.
2. Installing a puppet government means you gain the income/research etc from the city but you have NO CONTROL over what it builds, the puppet governor controls that. On the upside, you suffer much much less unhappiness by choosing this option.
**Why should you care about the unhappiness of a new city? Because happiness is no longer tracked per-city. Happiness is now a global civilization modifier, and you must keep your citizens' happiness balanced with your expansion and military actions else you will face large-scale revolt. Unhappy cities are a large drag on your empire, and this gives you much more incentive to resolve the unhappiness where in Civ 4 if a city was unhappy you could (mostly) safely ignore it until it fixed itself.
so that we didn't have some shit OP with no info. I regret my laziness.Rude much?
The $10 off D2D sale where you get civ 5 + next mini expansion DLC for free was only 40 bucks for me. I think there's a 5 dollar off sale if you use the coupon "PAX" right now. And yes, you can preload with D2D.Be that as it may, I'll never touch d2d again. Crap customer service, detestable DRM scheme.
Another nice new addition: You no longer have to faff around with transport ships. Once you research Optics, any unit can move out into shoreline tiles, and another tech lets units cross oceans.Oh, thank god...
Now these units are defenseless on the water, so must still be escorted.
Another nice new addition: You no longer have to faff around with transport ships. Once you research Optics, any unit can move out into shoreline tiles, and another tech lets units cross oceans.
Now these units are defenseless on the water, so must still be escorted.
Also, the formula hasn't actually been exactly the same for 20 years. Civ 4 had major changes over Civ 3, which had major changes over Civ 2, which had major changes over Civ 1, no matter how much Pathos tries to tell you that they were all just 'expansions' of each other.
Rude much?
*snip*
I'll never touch d2d again. Crap customer service, detestable DRM scheme.
Sounds like you won't be very happy that hotseat isn't in the game yet and might never be patched in.
In one of the videos a guy talked about how he'd kept one of his initial warrior units alive from the start of the game all the way to the modern age, upgrading them as he went so that they were eventually mechanized infantry with a bunch of promotions for the experience they'd attained.
So... Samurai units (Japanese unique upgrade to swordsmen) sound awesome. They fight at full strength no matter how damaged they are.
Oh, sorry. That is even more awesome.So... Samurai units (Japanese unique upgrade to swordsmen) sound awesome. They fight at full strength no matter how damaged they are.
I think you are confused on how awesome they are. ALL Japanese military units have that ability. Samurai are just better longswordsmen that also have an increased chance to produce great generals after combat.
They fight at full strength no matter how damaged they are.Eh from what I've seen in gameplay videos it shouldn't be that much of a problem, just finish them off from range.
Sure this is easy if you have the advantage, but they will still be more costly on average to deal with in an evenly matched fight.They fight at full strength no matter how damaged they are.Eh from what I've seen in gameplay videos it shouldn't be that much of a problem, just finish them off from range.
I pre-ordered this yesterday for my birthday. :D
Between all these disparate alterations, Civ V is going to be the biggest departure since Alpha Centauri. Is Sid Meier even still personally involved, or is Firaxis' stuff still as much his brainchild as before? Because I wonder what brought on all these new changes after nearly twenty years of the same basic formula.They promised to look at the feedback and playerbase suggestions and I believe they did it.
Funny... I ordered this for pickup at bestbuy since I had a gift card with 10 bucks left with them. Got an email today ??? saying it was ready for pickup.
Went in, they said they can't give it to me even though I can see it behind the counter, and they sent me an email saying I could pick it up.
Eh, will have it tomorrow. :-\
... Japanese units fight at full strength regardless of damage?
I can accept this so long as German units have a 2x critical hit rating. Or something equally awesome.
And balance-wise, I don't really care yet. I agree that Japanese unique ability is too strong, and some other stuff is lacking here and there, but it's a matter of expansions and patches. I didn't really like vanilla Civ IV before BTS too.
That....makes no sense at all.yeah very odd
Between all these disparate alterations, Civ V is going to be the biggest departure since Alpha Centauri. Is Sid Meier even still personally involved, or is Firaxis' stuff still as much his brainchild as before? Because I wonder what brought on all these new changes after nearly twenty years of the same basic formula.
That ability, combined with two good UU's likely puts Japan as one of the top Civ's. From what I hear on the civfanatics forums, France is a bit too powerful as well.
Only thing that really has me concerned is The Great Wall. Apparently it slows people in your cultural borders, which is absolutely overpowered since it apparently never obsoletes.
That ability, combined with two good UU's likely puts Japan as one of the top Civ's. From what I hear on the civfanatics forums, France is a bit too powerful as well.
Only thing that really has me concerned is The Great Wall. Apparently it slows people in your cultural borders, which is absolutely overpowered since it apparently never obsoletes.
Sounds fair, but never obsoletes? sounds a bit retarded.
Well, what I was getting at is "building the Great Wall means establishing a cultural heritage of defense against outsiders, which presumably will continue to use additional technologies as they become available".Well then it should drain resources for every upgrade/expansion of said wall, just like it costs to upgrade units, should it not?
Are you allowed to move units through other friendly units, or do you have to do an elaborate sliding-block dance?You can. It'll even notify you if your units will end up on the same tile.
so how does this make sense
I get a dvd with the civ 5 game on it. I set it installing and instead of installing from the disk it connects to steam, I verify my key, and it downloads
Are you allowed to move units through other friendly units, or do you have to do an elaborate sliding-block dance?You can. It'll even notify you if your units will end up on the same tile.
Edit: Holy crap, taking cities is hard. And why can't ranged units or archers capture cities? :(
Bleh this really puts me off from buying, after all I have to download it anyway (also it doesn't have hotseat >:(). My internet connection sucks, but just imagine how screwed are people with dial up. Is it at least written on the box you have to download 5 GB? What were they thinking? I suspect they were afraid dvd will be copied too easily or something ::).
You actually play hotseat?Yes I do.
...
Anyway, nobody has dial up.
Yeah well, it didn't. Must have glitched.so how does this make sense
I get a dvd with the civ 5 game on it. I set it installing and instead of installing from the disk it connects to steam, I verify my key, and it downloads
It should install from disc and then download a patch, not download the ~5gb of game completely.
How do you guys handle that phase when someone inevitably messes up early on and wants to restart? The initial "end turn" phase always felt like way too much of a grind for me.What? You mean no one messes up in early game over LAN?
When you play hotseat it's best to do it along other things, like reading book, having party or whatever you people like. That way you don't sit just waiting for your turn.I agree. Myself and a couple friends actually do homework fairly often while rotating through M2TW turns, because they take so long.
How do you guys handle that phase when someone inevitably messes up early on and wants to restart? The initial "end turn" phase always felt like way too much of a grind for me.What? You mean no one messes up in early game over LAN?
If it feels like grind you are you are doing it wrong or simply don't like game itself. When you play hotseat it's best to do it along other things, like reading book, having party or whatever you people like. That way you don't sit just waiting for your turn.
So, how is Civ 5?
Oh yeah, no more road spam all over the freaking place.
I only really have two major complaints about this version:
1. No tech trading... Only that silly research treaty thing that shares your next tech advance with the other player's.
2. AI can be quite nonsensical. Above and beyond standard AI stupidity. For instance: If you build your new city anywhere in the remote direction of any civilization, even if it's quite a long ways away, expect them to send you an angry note. Also, your units like to path through enemy territory. They are also quite strangely generous this time around... surrendering VERY easily on the normal - mid-hard difficulties. Sometimes I don't even have to fight a war, just declare one, wait 9 turns, and offer them peace for every piece of gold they have now and for the next 30 turns. Some other more enterprising players have talked about declaring war on city states, stealing all their workers, then offering peace. Things like that.
The AI stuff will most likely get fixed, not sure about the tech trading. *sniff*
time to switch seatsWhy do you even bother with sitting down if it just takes few seconds to finish turn? Anyway I'm done with this hotseat topic, you don't like it, don't play it. Simple as that.
It isn't on steam yet. If I order it now, would it still be a preorder? I don't know what mesopotamia pack is, but having it surely beats not having it, if it is free.
First I think the terrain and improvement system is fairly terrible compared to civ4. A lot of the terrains seem the same, flood plains and grassland by the river for example, and the improvements are generic, farm is always +1 food rather than being better for crops. This lead to the funness of me mining wheat as that was actually a more useful bonus than farming it. (Although in retrospect maybe a trade camp would have been better)
I don't think you get the bonus food from wheat unless you build a farm on it, which means mining a wheat tile results in 2 less food than farming it.
First I think the terrain and improvement system is fairly terrible compared to civ4. A lot of the terrains seem the same, flood plains and grassland by the river for example, and the improvements are generic, farm is always +1 food rather than being better for crops. This lead to the funness of me mining wheat as that was actually a more useful bonus than farming it. (Although in retrospect maybe a trade camp would have been better)
I don't think you get the bonus food from wheat unless you build a farm on it, which means mining a wheat tile results in 2 less food than farming it.
Its not obvious because when you mouse over the tile it just says "Wheat: +1 Food" or something like that, but if you watch the yield you should only get the normal yield for that terrain type until you build an improvement on the resource. Same goes for things like iron and horses, which give bonus production but only if their improvements are built.I don't think you get the bonus food from wheat unless you build a farm on it, which means mining a wheat tile results in 2 less food than farming it.
I thought I was in the demo, seemed that way anyway but maybe I was getting confused :)
Me and a friend bought this on a coin flip. Damned heads!What was the other possibility?
Given how awesome this game is, it must have been Cocaine.
Come again why steam is so awesome? Game is right here on this DVD. Why can't I play it? ::)
@people who can play it: So what are thoughts so far on it? Is it as refreshing to series at it seems? I'm particularly interested in combat changes, this could take Civ from my "Solid, but nothing exciting" list to "Awesomeness" one. I really hate combat model in previous games, reason why I skipped Civ IV entirely. Just churning out units like in some C&C clone and measuring who's got bigger stack >_>.
The main selling point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get it quick and easy.Oddly enough, this is the main reason I buy games on services like Steam rather than buy them in a store. Downloading Civ 5 only took about 38 minutes, during which I was also streaming a movie and I think my girlfriend was doing some other stuff. Once it is purchased, I don't have to keep up with the DVD or the serial key as well.
The main selling point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get it quick and easy.Oddly enough, this is the main reason I buy games on services like Steam rather than buy them in a store. Downloading Civ 5 only took about 38 minutes, during which I was also streaming a movie and I think my girlfriend was doing some other stuff. Once it is purchased, I don't have to keep up with the DVD or the serial key as well.
The main selling point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get it quick and easy.Oddly enough, this is the main reason I buy games on services like Steam rather than buy them in a store. Downloading Civ 5 only took about 38 minutes, during which I was also streaming a movie and I think my girlfriend was doing some other stuff. Once it is purchased, I don't have to keep up with the DVD or the serial key as well.
The main selling point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get it quick and easy.Oddly enough, this is the main reason I buy games on services like Steam rather than buy them in a store. Downloading Civ 5 only took about 38 minutes, during which I was also streaming a movie and I think my girlfriend was doing some other stuff. Once it is purchased, I don't have to keep up with the DVD or the serial key as well.
Personally, I find the main point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get the game legally. Ya know, the knowledge that you won't be hit with a massive-scale copyright lawsuit with a $2000 dollar settlement. :P
But yes, digital downloads are an incredible thing. I have a filing drawer full of the various CDs, manuals, etc. that I accumulated over the years. There was a time when I was constantly swapping CDs (and often decided which game to play based on what was already in the drive, lazy me!). The only time I've reached into that drawer in the last 2.5 years was once to reinstall WC3. The lack of CDs and connected serial keys alone is enough to convert me to digital distribution, never mind the automatic installation of patches.
Of course, if your internet is slow and your bandwidth low, I can see downloading Civ V to be a real pain in the rear. So, to those people, I say: "Umm, sorry!" ;)
I dont think Valve is going under any time soon.The main selling point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get it quick and easy.Oddly enough, this is the main reason I buy games on services like Steam rather than buy them in a store. Downloading Civ 5 only took about 38 minutes, during which I was also streaming a movie and I think my girlfriend was doing some other stuff. Once it is purchased, I don't have to keep up with the DVD or the serial key as well.
Personally, I find the main point of buying a game instead of stealing it is that you get the game legally. Ya know, the knowledge that you won't be hit with a massive-scale copyright lawsuit with a $2000 dollar settlement. :P
But yes, digital downloads are an incredible thing. I have a filing drawer full of the various CDs, manuals, etc. that I accumulated over the years. There was a time when I was constantly swapping CDs (and often decided which game to play based on what was already in the drive, lazy me!). The only time I've reached into that drawer in the last 2.5 years was once to reinstall WC3. The lack of CDs and connected serial keys alone is enough to convert me to digital distribution, never mind the automatic installation of patches.
Of course, if your internet is slow and your bandwidth low, I can see downloading Civ V to be a real pain in the rear. So, to those people, I say: "Umm, sorry!" ;)
If a company goes under, you're fucked.
Blah blah no-cd crack blah blah.
Now I am alone in my continent, with 4 city states. What do I do with all that land?
Lately I have been using Rome a lot. The Legion and Ballista units are really, really fun and the production bonus for anything you've built in your capital is great.
I think that they have been trying to stop people from building huge empires for a while. In civ 3, I remember huge maps and me filling them with hundreds of cities. Not a big deal, since I wasn't actually losing anything, just not gaining gold and production from far cities. Conquest was easy and cheap too ( as far as actually keeping the territory is concerned).Now I am alone in my continent, with 4 city states. What do I do with all that land?
This is my main issue with Civ 5 I think. Even if you "control" a continent, you don't want to just fill it with cities like in the past because of the repercussions. It's a bit annoying, but I'm sure it's not as bad as I think it is, I just don't really know the system all that well yet.
What? Why? All a courthouse does is stop an occupied city from generating extra unhappiness. It would do nothing at all in your capital.Lately I have been using Rome a lot. The Legion and Ballista units are really, really fun and the production bonus for anything you've built in your capital is great.
I think I'd play Rome more if you could build a god damn courthouse in your capital. That is the one building I am always checking every turn to see if it has completed yet.
Not necessarily civ v, but still an awesome civ-related videoThat... was terrible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU&feature=sub (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU&feature=sub)
Not necessarily civ v, but still an awesome civ-related videoThat... was terrible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU&feature=sub (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU&feature=sub)
Not necessarily civ v, but still an awesome civ-related videoThat... was terrible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU&feature=sub (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU&feature=sub)
Be sure to have a defragmenter go over your civ5 install.Are you talking about the steam 'Defragment local files' option?
That fixes some loading time issues.
That thing is awful.Be sure to have a defragmenter go over your civ5 install.Are you talking about the steam 'Defragment local files' option?
That fixes some loading time issues.
I was curious if I actually need to do this, as I stopped doing regular defrags a few years ago when the HDD seek times generally rose so much that I saw no performance gain. I checked my HDD fragmentation and it was at 3%, did a quick defrag and I see no difference. I'm guessing this only helps if you have a very high fragmentation rate, which only really happens if your drive is near capacity and/or you constantly delete data and write new data like with video editing. It's also pretty rough on your drive.That thing is awful.Be sure to have a defragmenter go over your civ5 install.Are you talking about the steam 'Defragment local files' option?
That fixes some loading time issues.
Awful.
No no, use an actual (http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag/) defragmenter (http://www.piriform.com/defraggler).
Good god, is there any way to end turn without setting production for a city? I built ever possible building, I simply cannot build any more - there's no space to, and yet it doesnt allows me to end turn because it wants me to select a production. There arent any option like "Convert production to research" like there was in Civ IV and III...Just like in Civ 4, you must unlock the ability to produce research or wealth by researching the appropriate technologies. And no, you cannot just not produce anything in a city.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I. HATE. THE. RNG!!!!
So here's the story. Large map. Continents. Epic mode modded so that research is 175% longer instead of 125%. 15 civs. 13 civs spawned on one continent (and the small islands around it). 2 civs spawned on the other one. I'm on the one with the 13 civs.
So for 500 turns (1880 AD), the 13 of us were duking it out over our reasonably large continent and surrounding islands. We only just researched riflemen. Then all of a sudden, Iroqouis helicopters and mechanized infantry start landing all over the goddamn place and killing every one of us. When I went to check how the bleeding heck the Iroqouis could do such a thing, turns out they had FOURTY (40!!!!) cities on the other continent after wiping out Washington. To compare, the max any of us had at the time before the invasion of doom was 10.
500 turns and 16 hours completely wasted :(
Then all of a sudden, Iroqouis helicopters and mechanized infantry start landing all over the goddamn place and killing every one of us.Sounds awesome!
I had a really cool thing happen in my game earlier today.
I had just wrapped up a good round of annihilating Aztec on our shared continent, and had started blazing up the tech tree and had gotten hold of mechanized infantry. Suddenly I see a notification that the Persians are attacking a city state, Vienna, I think, and them calling for help. I though "Oh, all right" and promoted one of my Aztec-killing infantry to their mechanized version and gifting it to Vienna. I then forgot about it until a few turns later when I see that Vienna is suddenly a bigger state on the map. It turns out Vienna used my gifted Mechanized infantry to beat the crap out of the Persian early renaissance era military and even taking one of their cities. I continued gifting units to Vienna and some time later they actually completely wiped out the Persians.
End result: a 4 city city-state (they razed about half of the Persian cities a few turns after capturing them, for some reason). I didn't even think it was possible for city states to capture enemy cities, so I was pretty baffled about the whole event.
I had a really cool thing happen in my game earlier today.
I had just wrapped up a good round of annihilating Aztec on our shared continent, and had started blazing up the tech tree and had gotten hold of mechanized infantry. Suddenly I see a notification that the Persians are attacking a city state, Vienna, I think, and them calling for help. I though "Oh, all right" and promoted one of my Aztec-killing infantry to their mechanized version and gifting it to Vienna. I then forgot about it until a few turns later when I see that Vienna is suddenly a bigger state on the map. It turns out Vienna used my gifted Mechanized infantry to beat the crap out of the Persian early renaissance era military and even taking one of their cities. I continued gifting units to Vienna and some time later they actually completely wiped out the Persians.
End result: a 4 city city-state (they razed about half of the Persian cities a few turns after capturing them, for some reason). I didn't even think it was possible for city states to capture enemy cities, so I was pretty baffled about the whole event.
The note on city states in games only states that they're not ACTIVELY attempting to win the game. Sufficient player intervention could make it possible. We must experiment.
What? Why? All a courthouse does is stop an occupied city from generating extra unhappiness. It would do nothing at all in your capital.Lately I have been using Rome a lot. The Legion and Ballista units are really, really fun and the production bonus for anything you've built in your capital is great.
I think I'd play Rome more if you could build a god damn courthouse in your capital. That is the one building I am always checking every turn to see if it has completed yet.
Ahh, yeah I'd forgotten about that.What? Why? All a courthouse does is stop an occupied city from generating extra unhappiness. It would do nothing at all in your capital.Lately I have been using Rome a lot. The Legion and Ballista units are really, really fun and the production bonus for anything you've built in your capital is great.
I think I'd play Rome more if you could build a god damn courthouse in your capital. That is the one building I am always checking every turn to see if it has completed yet.
As rome, if a courthouse could be built in the capital, you could build it 25% faster elsewhere.
Awesome bug:That is awesome. I'll have to try that next time.
Railroads give 50% production boost to any city connected to your capital via railroads. However, the game must have forgotten than harbors (the FAR FAR FAR more cost effective way to make trade routes) also count as connections. So if you build a small railway from your capital to a harbor city, every single city you have with a port will get 50% railroad boost without the insane costs of actually building the railroads.
Not so awesome bug:
American Minutemen can't use roads. EVER. Their special trait is that every tile costs 1 movement point, sure this is great for traveling in hilly, forest covered terrian. But not for intercity travel. They don't use roads, how silly!
Awesome bug:
Railroads give 50% production boost to any city connected to your capital via railroads. However, the game must have forgotten than harbors (the FAR FAR FAR more cost effective way to make trade routes) also count as connections. So if you build a small railway from your capital to a harbor city, every single city you have with a port will get 50% railroad boost without the insane costs of actually building the railroads.
Trying to bring this back to the thread topic, what civ have you guys been playing?
Germany is definitely the most powerful civ of the bunch.
The only one I've played so far I'm not a big fan of is the French one, which I actually expected to be one of the better ones. You do get your first social much faster which is nice but it's only +2 per city and to get any decent bonus you need more cities which is counter productive.
Also focusing on diplomacy is great option, one/two city states can really help you tip balance of forces in your favour (just like in my playthrough), they also provide nice bonuses and luxuries/resources.
I also reaffirmed the fact that it is nearly impossible to complete a cultural victory or research all techs. This game I tried extra hard to set up a high culture nation, but I still ended up with only 3 and a half policies complete.I have only played the normal "Prince" difficulty yet, but in my current game it is only 560 AD and I have 3 policies complete already.
I also reaffirmed the fact that it is nearly impossible to complete a cultural victory or research all techs. This game I tried extra hard to set up a high culture nation, but I still ended up with only 3 and a half policies complete.Culture city states, get em.
Playing in the huge map is painfully slow in the modern era.Really? I'm enjoying 5 far more than 4 and I never liked Civ 2 at all. The stackless tactical combat in 5 is immensely satisfying, especially playing against my friend in multi.
But... just to add my 2 cents of opinion. After having played 2 full games of Civ5, I believe that Civ4 was more addictive, Civ2 was better, and Civ3 still remains my favorite. They built all that hype over Civ5 just to sell it to people who didn't play Civ to begin with it, it seems.
Really? I'm enjoying 5 far more than 4 and I never liked Civ 2 at all. The stackless tactical combat in 5 is immensely satisfying, especially playing against my friend in multi.That's understandable if you never liked 2. I didn't like the 'diplomacy' in 2, nor how the difficulty settings just meant how much the computer would cheat. That seems to hold true in civ5 as well. I didn't pay attention on my first game, so it started at difficulty 2, at dif 4, computers were creating wonders like 20-30 turns after the game started and they already had other cities as well.
Well Soulwynd it sort of reminds me of Worms.I'm not a fan of Civ so it's not like I played several games in each game of the series, more like maybe 5-10 on each one (unlike my recurring x-com addiction. D: ). If you think of the improvements they have made, it sort of went up to Civ3 that had cultural winning and four was somewhat like that, just a bit more streamlined. Then on 5 it feels simplified and bland, but that might be just me feeling that way about it.
My favorite is still Alpha Centauri.
I just remembered, didn't somebody earlier suggest to bribe 5 city states of the kind that gives you food? I am doing that, and the bonus is great! +25 on the capital and +15 on all other cities. population growth is fast.
Even better, I can actually pay for it and still have gold to spare for other uses. I'll have big troubles when costs start increasing however. But nothing that founding 3-4 more cities can't fix.
city states are great! or, at least, they give you good bonus. I am not sure if I like them or not.
My favorite is still Alpha Centauri.
My favorite is still Alpha Centauri.
This. I'd always wipe out Lal first too cause he was a power hungry dickhead.
My favorite is still Alpha Centauri.
This. I'd always wipe out Lal first too cause he was a power hungry dickhead.
I'm liking V so far though. Takes a bit of getting used to, but I like the changes so far.
Well, the scale in a game like this can never really be realistic. When you have turns leaping multiple years, you have to ask "Why did it take my warrior 8 years to travel a few hexes?" etc.
They just breed like rabbits :P.Well, the scale in a game like this can never really be realistic. When you have turns leaping multiple years, you have to ask "Why did it take my warrior 8 years to travel a few hexes?" etc.
Everybody in your distant scouting party is DEAD before they return.
Also a couple generations of people, they come back.
They just breed like rabbits :P.Well, the scale in a game like this can never really be realistic. When you have turns leaping multiple years, you have to ask "Why did it take my warrior 8 years to travel a few hexes?" etc.
Everybody in your distant scouting party is DEAD before they return.
Also a couple generations of people, they come back.
And I've decided not to buy it on Steam yet. I just pirated it and play it, and it's nice but not awesome, I don't see anything which makes it much better than Civ IV (but it's definitely different).
I can't play without a mod which "fixes" game speed though, otherwise units become obsolete while you build them hehe.
Are there any cracks so you can have it playing on multiple computers at the same time despite the whole steam thing?Play in offline mode?
Can you force alliances in Civilization 5?Depends what you mean. You can set up teams before the game starts, which I'm assuming forces alliances that stay through the whole game.
They just breed like rabbits :P.Well, the scale in a game like this can never really be realistic. When you have turns leaping multiple years, you have to ask "Why did it take my warrior 8 years to travel a few hexes?" etc.
Everybody in your distant scouting party is DEAD before they return.
Also a couple generations of people, they come back.
And I've decided not to buy it on Steam yet. I just pirated it and play it, and it's nice but not awesome, I don't see anything which makes it much better than Civ IV (but it's definitely different).
I can't play without a mod which "fixes" game speed though, otherwise units become obsolete while you build them hehe.
Don't you mean, Civ 5 pirated you?
yes that was a soviet russia joke
Can you force alliances in Civilization 5?Depends what you mean. You can set up teams before the game starts, which I'm assuming forces alliances that stay through the whole game.
Teams are awesome, you share technology automatically as well.Can you force alliances in Civilization 5?Depends what you mean. You can set up teams before the game starts, which I'm assuming forces alliances that stay through the whole game.
I'm not sure how much I agree with you there. Playing as the Hive, I often found myself allied with Zakharov, feeling that we're similar enough in means though we may have different end goals. It just ruins it when Zakharov tells me, "I've had enough of your brutal nihilism!" and declares war. It makes no sense. More human qualities than normal civ, though, I agree.
Different in Alpha Centauri though. Associated a lot of "human" qualities with Lady Diedre if you know what I mean.
It just ruins it when Zakharov tells me, "I've had enough of your brutal nihilism!" and declares war. It makes no sense.This is why I never bother with others, because I know that they will attack me sometime no matter what I do
Have you ever had a look at the Hive and University? The Hive is a police state, based upon suppressing dangerous ideas. The state (cue Judge Dred reference) can do whatever they want because they believe it's for the greater good and there is nobody to oppose them (they're all locked up). The university is a much more open society. While not exactly as strong as Rose, Zharkov does believe in the free flow of information, as he often defends large-scale information exchange networks. The justification for their often unethical research is that the whole university is drenched in the concept of "The end justifies the means". He needs next to no enforcement for his policies as long as the people believe he's doing the right thing, which is also exactly where the extra unrest comes from as the cities grow, because people are bound to not agree with the choices made and this is strenghtend when the rulers are less directly related to the working class.I'm not sure how much I agree with you there. Playing as the Hive, I often found myself allied with Zakharov, feeling that we're similar enough in means though we may have different end goals. It just ruins it when Zakharov tells me, "I've had enough of your brutal nihilism!" and declares war. It makes no sense. More human qualities than normal civ, though, I agree.
Different in Alpha Centauri though. Associated a lot of "human" qualities with Lady Diedre if you know what I mean.
Regardless, both societies are nihilistic in nature and based on the whole "end justifying the means" concept. As much as it makes sense that Zakharov would disagree with the Hive's system, it makes next to no sense for Zakharov to insult the Hive for its nihilism and invade it after years of technology trading and brotherhood. AC would have more of a connection to the leaders, rather than the countries, if alliances were less easily broken by the AI.Have you ever had a look at the Hive and University? The Hive is a police state, based upon suppressing dangerous ideas. The state (cue Judge Dred reference) can do whatever they want because they believe it's for the greater good and there is nobody to oppose them (they're all locked up). The university is a much more open society. While not exactly as strong as Rose, Zharkov does believe in the free flow of information, as he often defends large-scale information exchange networks. The justification for their often unethical research is that the whole university is drenched in the concept of "The end justifies the means". He needs next to no enforcement for his policies as long as the people believe he's doing the right thing, which is also exactly where the extra unrest comes from as the cities grow, because people are bound to not agree with the choices made and this is strenghtend when the rulers are less directly related to the working class.I'm not sure how much I agree with you there. Playing as the Hive, I often found myself allied with Zakharov, feeling that we're similar enough in means though we may have different end goals. It just ruins it when Zakharov tells me, "I've had enough of your brutal nihilism!" and declares war. It makes no sense. More human qualities than normal civ, though, I agree.
Different in Alpha Centauri though. Associated a lot of "human" qualities with Lady Diedre if you know what I mean.
The thing with Alpha Centauri is that all the different philosophies have their own merits and downsides. The Hive was Yang's own personal power splurge as much as the University was Zakharov's own personal mad scientist operation. Yang does not do it merely for personal power and ruthlessness, he does it because he actually believes in what he's preaching as does every other leader. The Hive is based on a philosophy that the individual must always succumb to the masses for the benefit of the entire hive, with no mere individual mattering at all in comparison to any benefit to the hive as a whole.
Besides, Yang's "ends" that justify the means are just personal power and ruthless domination.
So Napoleon is a warmonger that will find any excuse to expand his own personal power?But he's not doing that, he's just calling me names not actually declaring war on me. So unless he just wanted everyone to hate me then he didn't gain anything from having amnesia, especially since I'd assume that everyone else hates him as much as me now, he too was part of the war after all.
So, Napoleon acted like Napoleon?
I'm liking it so far, though the way that cultural borders expand isn't that great. Also, the AI loves canceling agreements and then offering them again the next turn.
This game has me addicted to TBS games again; it's turned into the dreaded "JUST ONE MORE TURN" type of deal, even with the Steam demo...
Funny, it didn't have that effect on me - I ended up stopping around turn 75 of the demo out of boredom and haven't started it up again since.
I also hate diplomatic AI. They are jerks for no reason and often don't want to accept trades that are VERY good for them, like their 1 surplus luxury for three mine ::).
I'm fairly sure if it just shows (1) next to their luxury it's not spare but just one you don't have that they do.No shit Sherlock :P.
...their 1 surplus luxury...
I'm fairly sure if it just shows (1) next to their luxury it's not spare but just one you don't have that they do.No shit Sherlock :P....their 1 surplus luxury...
I wonder how many of the people who are bored by Civ V when they weren't bored by earlier ones, are only bored because of growing older since then. I mean...Honestly I don't think I can even imagine putting that much time into a game these days!At first I was pretty bored pretty fast.
Other than FFH they just bore me.FFH? Fall from Heaven?
Has anyone else noticed that one of the Civ 5 ambient cow noises is the same as the one used in Lords of the Realm 2 from 1996? Driving me nuts, I just finished a long LotR2 marathon a month ago and Civ keeps spamming me with the cow noise.
If it isn't the same it's bloody well close.
It's probably one of the standard cow noises used in movies, cartoons, games, and what have you. Same with other lifestock noises.
The livestock noises do annoy me a bit.
Has anyone else noticed that one of the Civ 5 ambient cow noises is the same as the one used in Lords of the Realm 2 from 1996? Driving me nuts, I just finished a long LotR2 marathon a month ago and Civ keeps spamming me with the cow noise.
If it isn't the same it's bloody well close.
I used to play lord of the realm 2 a whole lot, loved it. I was so disappointed with lotr3 :(
Has anyone else noticed that one of the Civ 5 ambient cow noises is the same as the one used in Lords of the Realm 2 from 1996? Driving me nuts, I just finished a long LotR2 marathon a month ago and Civ keeps spamming me with the cow noise.
If it isn't the same it's bloody well close.
I used to play lord of the realm 2 a whole lot, loved it. I was so disappointed with lotr3 :(
It's probably one of the standard cow noises used in movies, cartoons, games, and what have you. Same with other lifestock noises.They're called Stock Sound Effects (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StockSoundEffects).
Civ5 still has some edges and inconsistencies the developers need to fix, but alltogether it's an enjoyable game. What I don't know is why developers still bother with diplomacy. I have yet to find a single game where you can really trust an AI player to uphold his end of the bargain or not stab you in the back at the first opportunity.
Or, I just capture one of Hiawatha's cities and liberate it back to Suleiman and a turn later he has the gall to tell me to basically F off.That's exactly what I was talking about, it so annoying. The ai basically has amnesia every couple of turns and forgets who's been nice to them or something, it must be fixed!
There was no LotR3, nor was there a Highlander 2 or third Godfather film. ;DOf course there was no Highlander 2, there can only be one!
The only thing I'm having issues with is getting to the 1500s... I've played two relatively long games that, just as they were getting good, crashed on me (and I need to find if it has an autosave function; no saved game time at all in that time frame). Maybe the recent patch will fix it, but who knows.It has autosave, and you can set it to autosave every turn I think.
I definitely don't like the major restrictions on expansion, to be honest. I like to expand as quickly as possible and play land-grab as far as resources, and trying to build a huge prospering empire (that generally remains peaceful) that's an economic powerhouse is my idea of fun.
Also, I find it funny that the AI (even Gandhi) will be condescending or boastful while I'm counting my nuclear weapons and contemplating who to invade next. Or, I just capture one of Hiawatha's cities and liberate it back to Suleiman and a turn later he has the gall to tell me to basically F off.
Gandhi is a twat.
Huh. As a Scientific & pacifistic player I've gotten the feeling that playing the warmonger is the easiest way to play this game. For anything but a cultural victory it's better to have a large empire.
I definitely don't like the major restrictions on expansion, to be honest. I like to expand as quickly as possible and play land-grab as far as resources, and trying to build a huge prospering empire (that generally remains peaceful) that's an economic powerhouse is my idea of fun.
Also, I find it funny that the AI (even Gandhi) will be condescending or boastful while I'm counting my nuclear weapons and contemplating who to invade next. Or, I just capture one of Hiawatha's cities and liberate it back to Suleiman and a turn later he has the gall to tell me to basically F off.
Gandhi is a twat.
I noticed the same thing (Caesar has been the same so far btw). In one game I controlled the upper half of a continent, while Gandhi and Caesar shared the lower half. They were constantly sending condescending messages to me, even while I was clearly in the lead in every field. At some point Caesar seized Gandhi's two cities. I recaptured them, liberated the indian capital and destroyed all roman cities except their capital and retreated again (I usually prefer not to pick on the weak). It only took a short while for the once grateful Gandhi to return to his old ways... I dropped some ICBMs on their cities out of spite after that and conquered them.
Can this game utilize Quad-cores?
I don't think it will work. As soon as AI gets an upperhand in tech and/or units, you won't get anything from them through demands. Plus, without teching you will miss most of the diplomacy options yourself so you will have to rely on their teching which will make the things much worse. A barbarians-type scenario (which existed for every Civ game) would be cool though..
So I just came up with an idea for a challenge for Civ 5.
Germany with no cities. Never use the starting settler, just go out with your warrior and convert some barbarians and kick some ass. Puppet every civ you conquer until you've got a mass of puppets sending you their loot. Preferably on marathon or epic so that the other civs don't outclass your warriors too soon. Become an army with a country, instead of a country with an army.
Can this game utilize Quad-cores?
Not really. Core utilization seems almost entirely on one core.
I don't think it will work. As soon as AI gets an upperhand in tech and/or units, you won't get anything from them through demands. Plus, without teching you will miss most of the diplomacy options yourself so you will have to rely on their teching which will make the things much worse. A barbarians-type scenario (which existed for every Civ game) would be cool though..You do get tech from puppets though. Presumably the culture you need for a next social policy is also ridiculously low, so having a mass of puppets and no cities might even win you a cultural victory. It's worth a try, anyway.
Can this game utilize Quad-cores?
Not really. Core utilization seems almost entirely on one core.
I thought I read somewhere in the settings on manual that it supports multicore. I'd expect multicoring to be a requirement for anyAAA game, though.game with an AI.
While I agree that the tech quotes are lackluster, this rates about a 2 on my 1-10 importance scale. :D
The combat more than makes up for it IMHO
Well OBVIOUSLY :). In reality, I just miss the SMAC characters, quotes and movies more than anything else.
Anyone what to help me develop a strat to get a second city followed by Stonehenge in the capital? For building I go: Worker, Warrior, Settler, Stonehenge and for techs I go mining, pottery, calendar. I generally have my worker mine a mountain first, whichever one provides me the biggest bonus.On High difficulty, Don't have many turns marginal for this.
Fikes: Don't do worker to start. Not in this one. Don't get a settler so early either, it'll ruin your golden age chances. Heck, I usually wait till my 3 warriors are built before I even bother with a worker. What's he going to make? Farms? xDAs I figured, I have done pretty much everything wrong according to your post. I’ve got some questions though…
Ah! I think that's one of the reasons I liked what I saw of Civ V so much. Sure, the previous civ games gave each culture its own color, and they each had their own leader picture. But there's subtle things here--like the way the game addresses you AS the historic leader at the start of the game--that makes it feel, well, a tiny bit more SMAC-ish. Yeah, it's kind of stupid honestly that taking creative control out of the hands of the player makes the game better. But SMAC always felt like you were playing a role, and Civ V is a very tiny, tiny nudge back in that direction.I think the beginning game speales are TURRIBLE. How can you address me as a leader in 5000bc and then talk about a battle I already won in 500BC? What the crap is that all about? Pick history or immersion, mixing the two is stupid.
While I agree that the tech quotes are lackluster, this rates about a 2 on my 1-10 importance scale. :D
The combat more than makes up for it IMHO
Well OBVIOUSLY :). In reality, I just miss the SMAC characters, quotes and movies more than anything else.
I'd love a new SMAC on the Civ 5 engine.Well, not exactly Civ5 engine, terraforming and unit designer were VERY nice features as well.
Oh, and that monolith with achievements. Sure it was doing nothing, but I still enjoyed getting them ahead of enemies.
Not to mention the ai sucks at combat, so it'll be an easy win.
although the AI seems much less competent.
I don’t really know how you would define the “commerce system” but I do know that it was so impossible to figure out what was happening with your money in Civ 4 that it became very frustrating.The commerce system being dividing your total wealth between science/culture/espionage/money.
I don’t really know how you would define the “commerce system” but I do know that it was so impossible to figure out what was happening with your money in Civ 4 that it became very frustrating.The commerce system being dividing your total wealth between science/culture/espionage/money.
I'm contemplating if I should pick this up now, or wait for it to be on sale some time.
Oh, and I miss espionage, too.
There's lots of improvements, don't get me wrong, but to make a DF comparison: it's like playing DF, with intuitive GUI and great graphics, but you can't dig or build anything.
I don't understand this map pack thing :|
In case anyone hasn't noticed, Steam is selling four map packs for Civ 5 at 3 dollars a piece or all four for 10 bucks. So um... yeah, I guess this is great news if you love micro transactions.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, Steam is selling four map packs for Civ 5 at 3 dollars a piece or all four for 10 bucks. So um... yeah, I guess this is great news if you love micro transactions.
Oh, EA, see what your folly has brought into this world. Civilization becoming a micro-transaction game. I hope they don't start making new nations and charging for them.
I'll just stick with Civilization 3.
What's wrong with Civ 4?
What's wrong with Civ 4?
It wasn't Civilization 3. :P
*cough* Babylon *cough*In case anyone hasn't noticed, Steam is selling four map packs for Civ 5 at 3 dollars a piece or all four for 10 bucks. So um... yeah, I guess this is great news if you love micro transactions.
Oh, EA, see what your folly has brought into this world. Civilization becoming a micro-transaction game. I hope they don't start making new nations and charging for them.
I didn't really like Civ5 much. The non-stacking mechanics were a nice idea, if pretty poorly implemented (how the hell am I meant to get troops past other troops blocking a place? Are you saying they can't WALK AROUND ONE ANOTHER?!)
The ONLY time I had traffic issues was with a narrow pass between mountains, and even that wasn't too hard.
Why, in a competitive game, would you play as Greece?
I found civ V to be rather boring in comparison to IV, I think it is mostly the huge penalties for conquering other civs.
In terms of the Civ 4 v. Civ 5 debate, I have but one thing to point out.
Civ 5 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=418)
Civ 4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=215)
Ahh yes, two websites! genius!
What exactly am I looking at?
The amount of mods, I reckon.
The amount of mods, I reckon.
Really? because that would seem an unreasonable comparison considering how much longer Civ 4 has been around.
The amount of mods, I reckon.
Really? because that would seem an unreasonable comparison considering how much longer Civ 4 has been around.
Civ 5 has been out for a year. I would have expected at least a dozen mods by now.
There are far more than a dozen available.The amount of mods, I reckon.
Really? because that would seem an unreasonable comparison considering how much longer Civ 4 has been around.
Civ 5 has been out for a year. I would have expected at least a dozen mods by now.
Singleplayer FFH2 was quite boring IMO. I really miss Rhyes' and Fall of Civilization.
despite having a quad core processor on a computer that came out a couple of years after Civ IV, Rhyes and fall of civilization caused major lag :(
it's a shame because the mod is actually awesome (I can play 50 rounds, then it lags like shit)
I didn't know there was one. Is it an actual expansion, or more dlc fluff?Actual expansion. Adds in religion among other things, and looks pretty good. Civilization V: Gods & Kings is the name
Well, clearly atheism itself will be a religion; witness the "reason" civics and the USSR.
Here's a preview of the expansion (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/civilization-5-gods-and-kings-preview/).
This isn't very original of me, but whenever I see anything about it I think of it as "Civilization V: Beyond The Sword." It does look interesting though.
Sid Meier’s Civilization 5 rode a wave of high praise into stores and digital storefronts when it launched at the end of 2010. And why wouldn’t it have?Stopped reading right there. When did this happen?
I also prefer Civ 4. My main issues with Civ 5 are that the AIs are super boring and, of all the Civ games, Civ 5 is by far the slowest with the least to do in the endgame. I always get bored around 1700 or so. By contrast, Civ 4 BTS is by far the best about staying interesting throughout the course of the game.
I also prefer Civ 4. My main issues with Civ 5 are that the AIs are super boring and, of all the Civ games, Civ 5 is by far the slowest with the least to do in the endgame. I always get bored around 1700 or so. By contrast, Civ 4 BTS is by far the best about staying interesting throughout the course of the game.Has anyone just played the original civ 4, the buggy one where the AI was crap, not to mention didn't know how to make an economy until the first expansion? Where combat was even worse and the random rolls were always stacked against you?
Are we now comparing Civ 4 out of the gate with Civ 5 on first release? Yeah I think Civ 4 still wins on both the metrics I mentioned.
Are we now comparing Civ 4 out of the gate with Civ 5 on first release? Yeah I think Civ 4 still wins on both the metrics I mentioned.
I disagree. The raw Civ 4 was a very simplistic beast, and other than variation of terrain I think most of the Civ 5 changes are an improvement.
I must say though I think it's a shame that they've basically removed any significant difference between terrain tiles in terms of what they give your cities, kinda makes it so it doesn't matter where you settle.
Maybe with regards to basic terrain types... but when you consider buildings which improve existing resource yield (e.g. granaries giving +1 food for certain worked items), building/wonder requirements for an adjacent mountain (e.g. observatories require adjacent mountain and give +50% science), building/wonder requirements for specific resources (e.g. circus requires horses or ivory and gives +2 happiness with no maintenance), and such, you're still dealing with a lot of choices to consider. It's certainly possible to get by if you don't maximize potential but it's still worth trying to nab certain locations over others.
So I recently picked up the expansion, Gods and Kings, over the Steam Sale and just now got around to playing it.
I think it really added a lot of things that was sorely needed in the original game. I still can't really determine what kind of long term impact religion as a whole does (I don't think there's a way to win by religion), but I take a few advances that give me a decent chunk of change for converting enough people.
Still don't like the whiney city-states though, and there doesn't seem to be a way to smother them in culture in order to peacefully bring them to my side.
I'm looking for a fairly specific mod, I know that there was one for civ iv that did exactly this but I can't remember the name so I can't find anything similar for civ v:
basically, I look for a mod that changes the 'maraton' turn length unit cost, so that it takes the same as in a normal game to build a unit but it takes the long game amount of time to build a structure/perform research/earn money/build improvement etc
<GameSpeeds>
<Row>
<ID>0</ID>
<Type>GAMESPEED_MARATHON</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_GAMESPEED_MARATHON</Description>
<Help>TXT_KEY_GAMESPEED_MARATHON_HELP</Help>
<DealDuration>90</DealDuration>
<GrowthPercent>300</GrowthPercent>
<TrainPercent>300</TrainPercent>I'm looking for a fairly specific mod, I know that there was one for civ iv that did exactly this but I can't remember the name so I can't find anything similar for civ v:
basically, I look for a mod that changes the 'maraton' turn length unit cost, so that it takes the same as in a normal game to build a unit but it takes the long game amount of time to build a structure/perform research/earn money/build improvement etc
The AI have an annoying habit of getting free insta-heals each turn (especially on the higher levels) so make sure you kill off units rather than half damaging many. Especially ranged ones.
Oddly enough I developed a bad habit in strategy games from playing board games against PCs where I calculate my strength in accordance to the computers.
But the issue is that I keep forgetting the computer cheats and that often leads to me loss.
The AI have an annoying habit of getting free insta-heals each turn (especially on the higher levels) so make sure you kill off units rather than half damaging many. Especially ranged ones.
Oddly enough I developed a bad habit in strategy games from playing board games against PCs where I calculate my strength in accordance to the computers.
But the issue is that I keep forgetting the computer cheats and that often leads to me loss.
Insta heal isn't a cheat, it's using up promotions. You can do it too.
Insta heal isn't a cheat, it's using up promotions. You can do it too.
Do you think were stupid? Everyone here has played Civ5 and knows about that. The problem is that the AI is capable of healing every single turn.
I think its pretty hard to NOT notice something like that, thank you.
And the AI healing its units also happens on Prince Difficulty, so I don't know what you are talking about either. I have literally seen it occurring, so don't tell me that I must be mistaken.
I've played prince, and not seen it happen.
only when I lose several units to an enemy unit, do I notice it, and I took that as them using a promotion.
I've played prince, and not seen it happen.
only when I lose several units to an enemy unit, do I notice it, and I took that as them using a promotion.
Da fuq? I ran out of money in my game, the Byzzies+Amercia were broke and England was far too greedy to give me a cent, and Arabia (My Long time enemy) was looking weak and ally-less. So I thought "Hey, lets attack Arabia to fill my coffers again! That won't go horribly wrong, right?"
Edit: Actually no. I save-scummed, and as it turned out it was because I declared war on a single city state. So now apparently capturing a single meaningless City state which has absolutely no friends or military makes you a horrible and evil warmonger who must be punished twelve-fold.Attacking city states is always a gamble in Civ 5. Any AI who were even remotely friendly or neutral to the city state will get upset, and if its not the first warmongering type action you've taken they may decide you're a threat to them. Its also possible the city state had a resource which it was sharing with those other AI and your attack would cut them off from it.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Don't see it here either.
Edit: apparently the deal only works on Sunday. =| No wonder.
Greece, stop fucking about >.>
If you ask me to join a war, do not dive out of it the moment I join! Now everyone thinks I'm a warmonger!
I hate steam now. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU ADVERTISE THE WORKSHOP, LET ALONE RELEASE IT, IF ONE HALF OF THE USERS(The Mac users, to be percise) CAN'T USE IT?If you look at the Steam statistics, Mac users account for less than 0.05 of all Steam users.
Oh. Well... I feel like an idiot now.I hate steam now. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU ADVERTISE THE WORKSHOP, LET ALONE RELEASE IT, IF ONE HALF OF THE USERS(The Mac users, to be percise) CAN'T USE IT?If you look at the Steam statistics, Mac users account for less than 0.05 of all Steam users.
Pretty far from one half.
I hate steam now. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU ADVERTISE THE WORKSHOP, LET ALONE RELEASE IT, IF ONE HALF OF THE USERS(The Mac users, to be percise) CAN'T USE IT?If you look at the Steam statistics, Mac users account for less than 0.05 of all Steam users.
Pretty far from one half.
Yeah, but if they were running Windows on their Mac, they wouldn't really have the problem OREOSOME is having.I hate steam now. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU ADVERTISE THE WORKSHOP, LET ALONE RELEASE IT, IF ONE HALF OF THE USERS(The Mac users, to be percise) CAN'T USE IT?If you look at the Steam statistics, Mac users account for less than 0.05 of all Steam users.
Pretty far from one half.
Intel Mac users have access to Windows.
I used to think Civ V was pretty good. Until I decided to get the dust off ol' CIV IV with mods. Never looked back.
And yes, the AI has severe issues with being indecisive (except monty who loves to buttrape you all the time). However the one unit per tile system brought a much more interesting tactical aspect to the combat which is the only thing I could say I miss in civ IV.
It's almost as if not everyone likes the same things!I don't understand. What do you mean not everyone likes the same thing? Where would you get such crazy ideas?
Considering the 'the more cities you make or conquer, the more your empire will suck' mechanicYou realize that there are about half a dozen ways to avoid that right? You simply have to understand the game. There are ways to play a perfectly viable large conquering empire and mitigate the unhappiness and corruption which comes from such a large empire. Its also possible to win with a small empire. You can play whichever way you want, and its not as simple as "Conquer every city".
This would probably be my situation too.I used to think Civ V was pretty good. Until I decided to get the dust off ol' CIV IV with mods. Never looked back.
And yes, the AI has severe issues with being indecisive (except monty who loves to buttrape you all the time). However the one unit per tile system brought a much more interesting tactical aspect to the combat which is the only thing I could say I miss in civ IV.
Yeah, I personally loved the hexes and the one unit per tile part, but everything else in the game just seemed lacking. Played one game, enjoyed it a bit, went back to Alpha Centauri whenever I need my Civ fix.
I'm kind of shocked that Civ V is played so much (see the daily stats on Steam). Considering the 'the more cities you make or conquer, the more your empire will suck' mechanic, which in my experience makes it far, far, easier to win as a single city than as a multi-city empire, I'm surprised anyone plays it at all.
I'm kind of shocked that Civ V is played so much (see the daily stats on Steam). Considering the 'the more cities you make or conquer, the more your empire will suck' mechanic, which in my experience makes it far, far, easier to win as a single city than as a multi-city empire, I'm surprised anyone plays it at all.
This is a necro, but Civ V is on steam sale now for 75% off for the next couple of hours.
I have played CIV very heavily in the past, but never wanted to spend big bucks for this one considering the mixed reviews.
Did the AI end up getting improved? I have purchsed the gold edition, so I'm hoping its not as bad as I have heard.
Also, I might be up for some online sessions with B12ers in a few weeks once I get past some deadlines if anybody is interested.
Also, the UI of course is very nice and polished.Is it ?
Hmm. I -thought- I bought gold, but apparently not. It's just gods and kings also.
Welp, it works well enough on my lappies intel core i5 with the graphics set low.
I have enjoyed an hour session so far. The tech tree seems quite reduced to Civ four, but the choice in various civilization leaders was reasonable. I guess this is because of the various DLC stuff I got with this version.
Also, the UI of course is very nice and polished.
Hmm. I -thought- I bought gold, but apparently not. It's just gods and kings also.
Welp, it works well enough on my lappies intel core i5 with the graphics set low.
I have enjoyed an hour session so far. The tech tree seems quite reduced to Civ four, but the choice in various civilization leaders was reasonable. I guess this is because of the various DLC stuff I got with this version.
Also, the UI of course is very nice and polished.
Brave new world was released after gold edition, so it's not in it.
Gold edition is everything except brave new world.
Edit: I just re-read my previous post and realized it's very misleading, sorry, I meant if you have gold edition you only have G+K, not BNW. That's what I get for making posts at 5 am.
Arg crap! I wouldn't have bought the gold edition if I knew that. Does anyone know how the steam refunds thing works?
I think I've found what has really bothered me about Civ V. Imagine that every line of text and graphic in Civ V was changed to instead make the game a coral reef simulator, with every mechanic identical. The map would be a coastal seabed, with different local properties like sunlight and rocky areas, and everything in the game would be renamed and remodeled to accommodate this. You'd build up your reef using a species of coral with some slight differences from the other species, colonize new reefs, inhabit your reefs with fish that fill specific niches and populate the surrounding seabed, and take over other reefs using reproductive polyps or something (I guess the analogy fails a bit at combat). It could be exactly the same in every regard, but with coral instead of civilizations.
I just started playing this recently courtesy of a giveaway from GMG.As far as I'm aware, they've been trying to get away from the "More Cities = Better" mechanic for most of the series' history. Civ 5 does an admirable job of this; I routinely play with just one city, which still isn't ideal (except maybe if you're pushing a culture victory), but is far more feasible than in any previous iteration.
Is my management strange, or does it really seem to try and punish you for having large amounts of cities? I started having unmanageable unhappiness around 15 cities (that I constructed). Related to that, does anybody else find city conquest really difficult now, with their passive defenses and bombardment? (Point of reference, I'm coming from the 256-color Civ and SMAC as my last Civ experiences.)
I think I've found what has really bothered me about Civ V. Imagine that every line of text and graphic in Civ V was changed to instead make the game a coral reef simulator, with every mechanic identical. The map would be a coastal seabed, with different local properties like sunlight and rocky areas, and everything in the game would be renamed and remodeled to accommodate this. You'd build up your reef using a species of coral with some slight differences from the other species, colonize new reefs, inhabit your reefs with fish that fill specific niches and populate the surrounding seabed, and take over other reefs using reproductive polyps or something (I guess the analogy fails a bit at combat). It could be exactly the same in every regard, but with coral instead of civilizations.I don't think this is a problem that's unique to Civ V. Anything can be reskinned as something else and work to some extent; is there something specific about Civ V that's uniquely malleable or bland to you?
What genre would people put this game in? It definitely wouldn't be grand strategy, since people would reason that the scope is too narrow and most gameplay areas too basic. I don't think very many people would play it, maybe if it could run on a mobile device. So what makes Civ V different? That's what bothers me, really, that it's been abstracted and simplified to the point where the game's subject matter doesn't make any difference. It's like it's pretending to be something it's not, since it could just as well be a coral simulator as the story of every nation on the planet from the birth of civilization into the future.
One big thing that bothers me about Civilization is how Western a lot of the values are... Let me explain.Seems kind of complex and wonky just to satisfy some principles.
They seem to basically treat the idea of Barbarians as non-humans. You have the Civilizations, you have Barbarians, and you have city states. There are clear lines drawn between them. It makes sense as far as gameplay goes, but it really doesn't seem right, especially since many of the civilizations that exist in game basically started as "Barbarians". I mean, look at the mongols. No offense to them, but they started as a group of nomadic horsemen.
It also seems strange how culture works, the lines are set so strongly. There is this culture, then there is this culture, and there are no grey areas. I mean, again, in terms of gameplay it makes sense, but it bothers me. I wanted to make a mod that changes how it all works. I haven't thought of all of the details yet, but here is a general idea.
The mod would start you as a barbarian unit without any technology researched (Including agriculture). You can create a camp (AKA a barbarian camp). It would be treated as a pseudo-city, letting you build and do things in it like a normal city. It would basically be the same as a barbarian encampment, letting you build barbarian units, etc. ALL barbarian camps would follow the same logic, so all the barbarian encampments that start have the ability to potentially become a civilization.
To form a civilization you need to generate culture. Once you generate enough culture points you can start a culture (Same as starting a religion). You choose what culture you want (Basically this is when you choose the Civ you want to play as). This acts as a religion, and it can spread to neighboring cities or camps. A camp/city that becomes mostly your culture is possible to take over without inflicting as many unhappiness penalties. It should even be possible to take them over through peaceful means, if your particular culture is omnipresent. I was also thinking of allowing peaceful annexation through a "Great Leader" system which would replace Great Generals (Think Ghengis Khan who united the mongols).
Basically it would feel more like a living, breathing world. Instead of you being a shining beacon of civilization in a world of barbarians, it would feel more like just one more group of humans trying to eke out their existence, surrounded by other tribes trying to do the same.
Thoughts?
For instance, you say each civilization starts off as a barbarian camp, but that to become a civilization you need to generate culture. But since you presumably can't do anything as a barbarian camp, there's either just this sort of zerg-rush phase where you can try to wipe out your neighbors by being a better barbarian than them, or it's just a sort of dead zone where all you can/want to do is sit there and generate culture so you can actually play the game.
basically that if you leave a barbarian camp for too long, it becomes a civilization. Okay... so uninhabited places get colonized pretty quickly by other civs, and... well, barbarians just kind of run themselves to extinction, don't they? Since anyplace that can sustain barbarians eventually becomes its own non-barbarian civ that then prevents more barbarians?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think Barbarians becoming (minor) civs was either included in Civ IV or at least modded in.It's a mod, but it was easier to do so because barbarians had actual cities in civ IV
The thing that really grinds my gears about barbarians in civ5 is they keep up in tech with the highest(?) tech player, and they manage to build modern units somehow.I think the term for 'barbarians' with modern weaponry is 'terrorists'
I'm sorry, but if your barbarian encampment is able to build battleships and modern armor, you're not barbarians anymore.
I have all the DLC and didn't have more than one person to play multiplayer, so depending on the time, yeah, I might be up for it.
I'm interested, but I need to buy a new computer first, which may take a few weeks.
Also I only own the vanilla game.
I would certainly be interested in multiplayer, but only with the expansions. They are somewhat crucial to the game, it feels very incomplete without them.
My biggest gripe with religion in this game is that any civ that's founded a religion can't possibly be converted to another permanently. It's be like if the Fatimids repeatedly converted to Judaism until they lost Judea.I would certainly be interested in multiplayer, but only with the expansions. They are somewhat crucial to the game, it feels very incomplete without them.
Oh yes. I absolutely love the political element World Congress adds with BNW. I have no idea how to use religion, so outside of spies and rebalances G&K is less crucial, but BNW is essential. Otherwise post-Industrial game becomes a slog.
I hate that you can't extinguish a religion, because you can't extinguish it from the holy city, even one you control. If you use an inquisitor in a holy city, next turn the holy city will still pop up with heavy influence/push/whateveritscalled of that religion. Maybe if you raze it but razing a holy city is generally not a good idea, just because they tend to be large and well established and so capturing them makes more sense economically.
I hate that you can't extinguish a religion, because you can't extinguish it from the holy city, even one you control. If you use an inquisitor in a holy city, next turn the holy city will still pop up with heavy influence/push/whateveritscalled of that religion. Maybe if you raze it but razing a holy city is generally not a good idea, just because they tend to be large and well established and so capturing them makes more sense economically.
If you use an inquisitor on another holy city, it will cease to be a holy city. I've done it before. It's fun to do when you play continents and then completely take over your continent before meeting the other one.
Yeah, the mod is called something like Civilization Eye Vee or something like that.
Don't worry, muscle wizards are on the way, remain seated and brace yourself.Yeah, the mod is called something like Civilization Eye Vee or something like that.
I need someone to punch me for googling that, posthaste.
HeeheeheeYeah, the mod is called something like Civilization Eye Vee or something like that.
I need someone to punch me for googling that, posthaste.
Anyway, question now is, should I be interested in getting Brave New World? Does it add all that much?
Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??Come now, they have very detailed simulations for dictators suffering breakdowns and ranting about the final and imminent destruction of the infidel.
Not at all. You could totally arbitrarily be forced to choose between declaring ducks unimpugnible or permanently losing -1 Gold Production from a target city, or outlawing cinnamon or suffering a temporary Happiness hit.
Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??
I did not realize I wanted that this badly.You are (not) alone on this one.
Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??
Because civ 5 is not an empire builder, it's a wargame. There's no meaningful diplomacy because the only purpose of diplomacy is appeasing people till you can build a big enough army to kill them. It's like asking why the total war series has bad diplomacy.
I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?
They've tried to fix this with the expansions, but the core of the game is just too focused on being a wargame to have meaningful diplomacy.
Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??
Because civ 5 is not an empire builder, it's a wargame. There's no meaningful diplomacy because the only purpose of diplomacy is appeasing people till you can build a big enough army to kill them. It's like asking why the total war series has bad diplomacy.
I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?
They've tried to fix this with the expansions, but the core of the game is just too focused on being a wargame to have meaningful diplomacy.
Considering that you have Scientific, Cultural, and Diplomatic victory conditions (and you've pretty much always had those) in addition to the Conquest victory, I really think the Civ series should move past the pure wargame mentality. It keeps trying, but never in a way that really gives much meaning to relationships with other nations.
I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?All of them, I would tend to think. Otherwise it turns into less of an empire builder and more of a land amasser. Similar concepts with levels in RPGs, army sizes in RTSs, clearing levels in puzzle games...
honestly, the way theyre implemented they're just like "fuck you" victories. I turn them off every time I play.I'm not sure what you mean.
I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?All of them, I would tend to think. Otherwise it turns into less of an empire builder and more of a land amasser. Similar concepts with levels in RPGs, army sizes in RTSs, clearing levels in puzzle games...
Punishing having more X can be a sign that the game's centered on X as easily as it can be a sign that the game's not really supposed to be about X.
Really? because I can't think of any offhand. Sure there might be some cost associated with grabbing land so you can't just gobble it all up at once... but you pretty much want to grab everything you can at some point, and the reason you attack the enemy is to gobble up his land too."Gobble up as much land as you can as fast as you can, within financial constraints for speed" sounds more like a wargame than an empire builder to me. Certainly it sounds like RTSs and a lot of military-focused TBSs I'm familiar with, with resource nodes replacing raw land in the RTS case.
Not so with civ 5. You want maybe 3 - 5 cities (depending on map size, etc) and you attack the enemy to kill him and burn down his cities because adding them to your empire makes you weaker, not stronger.
you attack the enemy to kill him and burn down his cities because adding them to your empire makes you weaker, not stronger.Plus, this in particular. If attacking someone lets you gobble up his cities to strengthen your empire, it's obvious why you'd attack him- and it seems like combat is a major or at least very attractive part of that game. If it doesn't and the only point is to burn his stuff to the ground should you so choose... well, that sounds like a game where either the whole point is to defeat everyone around you, or a game where attacking other players isn't the focus, and maybe not even a particularly good idea.
And don't forget you can have puppet cities after conquering cities instead of razing them. (Venice can't have other cities if I remember right)
You know, I think it could work as a hybrid Civ game/Forum diplomacy game.
I noticed it on the workshop, but ignored it because I had no interest in having blizzard in civ.
Ah, well yes you need to buy multiple copies to play multiplayer online. Why wouldn't you?Civ I-IV could be played in multiplayer hotseat, with just one copy of the game Well, I know II-IV could be, and assume I had this functionality as well.
Another change is that cities will resist hostile invasion even if undefended.Which is a decent enough idea, but when the cities are tougher and faster-regenerating than military units...well, it's easier to destroy a fleet of tanks than to capture a city.
Another nice new addition: You no longer have to faff around with transport ships. Once you research Optics, any unit can move out into shoreline tiles, and another tech lets units cross oceans.Regardless, I do like this. Probably my favorite feature of Civ V.
Now these units are defenseless on the water, so must still be escorted.
compared to what civ 4 was to civ 3, civ 5 seems to be an huge leap for the series.Hell, compared to (what I remember of) Civ II to Civ IV, it's a huge leap.
Between all these disparate alterations, Civ V is going to be the biggest departure since Alpha Centauri.From what I know of Alpha Centauri, I'd say Civ V's change is bigger.
Only thing that really has me concerned is The Great Wall. Apparently it slows people in your cultural borders, which is absolutely overpowered since it apparently never obsoletes.Nor does it make sense.
Muz, that's not really fair. You're comparing games made with the limitations of 1991 and 2000 to games made in 2010.That's part of it, but I daresay that anyone who started being in the business a couple decades ago could stand to have some new blood and thought mixed into his game designs. If nothing else, it prevents the typical "the same with better graphics" complaints.
You get one and frankly I never liked how wonders became obsolete too much anyhow. Not for strategy reasons but for "I built it, why are you taking it away?" reasons.I think you answered your own question.
Though Civilization has sometimes boiled down to the Civ that managed to get a Wonder since for some you could combo Wonders to advance many times faster then your opponent.
As for making it useless. An alternative that I would have liked is if its ability lessened or changed. I mean sure Shakespeare's theater is no longer relevant (Ignoring that it is the most anti-historical wonder in the entire series) but maybe later on it should increase chances of a cultural great or spread culture.IIRC, obsolete wonders still give Culture.
Well, what I was getting at is "building the Great Wall means establishing a cultural heritage of defense against outsiders, which presumably will continue to use additional technologies as they become available".No, Wonders are one, single thing. Patterns are what you're talking about. A civilization that makes it hard for enemies to get through is one thing; a civilization that builds one great wall is another.
I mean, even in previous Civ games, once you built the Great Wall it's not like it instantly appeared along certain tile boundaries, and then stopped protecting outer cities once you expanded. Wonders are mutable over time, they're symbolic.
Yeah, the 1 unit per tile limitation in the new civ has made choke points a key to defensive victory.On the other hand, it makes it impossible to take cities unless you can get really strong units to the front lines. And makes moving troops to the enemy a hell of a lot harder. If I wanted war to require micromanagement, I would play Dwarf Fortress instead.
Hot-seat games were always good fun. We chose that over LAN most of the time.Indeed. It's also helpful if you only have one computer.
It's actually possible to play hotseat? How do you guys handle that phase when someone inevitably messes up early on and wants to restart? The initial "end turn" phase always felt like way too much of a grind for me.We dealt with it. Usually with one guy checking that the others didn't want to fiddle with anything and hitting End Turn.
I do not think cities are that hard to take over, you just need to bomb the crap out of them and support your ranged attacked with melee units. I was in the modern era last night, assulting a country across the sea. My ships cleared the beaches for my ground units, my ground units cleared the anti aircraft for my interceptors, my interceptors cleared the interceptors for my bombers and my bombers blasted the cities for my ground troops. It was awesome.1. It's not hard, sure, but it's a pain.
the introduction movie looks great!That it does. It's sometimes almost impossible to tell that it's CG.
The combat is far and away better than the stack rush of Civ 4, and probably the most improved feature. Position, movement and variety of units actually matter somewhat. Unfortunately the AI seems unable to deal with it (but we all know how unreasonably hard decent tactical AI is).And, of course, most players have about the same level of knowledge in how to deal with it. I'm still not sure how one can wage war in a timely manner, and it's a pain to manage war when taking a single city takes a dozen turns at best.
The other major improvements from my brief playing are the new social system replacement for civics, you get much more choice and each choice is minor enough than most aren't 'must haves' but it's all about how they synergise (that's not even a word is it), and the streamlining of the happiness / tax / research systems.IMHO, the inability to change what social branches you grow is a bit of a pain, as is reducing the link between social policies and what they represent in a simulationist sense.
How many real-life countries have ever controlled that much land?There's Australia, of course. But that's the smallest continent, the most sparsely-populated, and between almost nonexistent soil fertility, its arid climate, and its infamous wildlife, Australia is objectively the second-worst continent to live on (it beats Antarctica by a wide margin, but well...it's Antarctica). So there's that.
My only objection to that is that the song does have lyrics already, they're just not in English.Bugs me too.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!That's hilarious.
I. HATE. THE. RNG!!!!
So here's the story. Large map. Continents. Epic mode modded so that research is 175% longer instead of 125%. 15 civs. 13 civs spawned on one continent (and the small islands around it). 2 civs spawned on the other one. I'm on the one with the 13 civs.
So for 500 turns (1880 AD), the 13 of us were duking it out over our reasonably large continent and surrounding islands. We only just researched riflemen. Then all of a sudden, Iroqouis helicopters and mechanized infantry start landing all over the goddamn place and killing every one of us. When I went to check how the bleeding heck the Iroqouis could do such a thing, turns out they had FOURTY (40!!!!) cities on the other continent after wiping out Washington. To compare, the max any of us had at the time before the invasion of doom was 10.
500 turns and 16 hours completely wasted :(
That sounds rather cool though.Wouldn't have happened. The Americas are just too low indomesticable species and are too north/south aligned to allow for rapid transmission of crops and ideas and such. Eurasia would always have had the edge.
Like if no one had discovered America and Europe kept fighting amongst itself and then the Aztecs nuke everyone.
To be fair, that's just exactly what happened in real life, except the Iroquois started in the other continent.And the invaders weren't a quarter as unified.
From a game design point, this railroad/harbor thing is kind of dumb, but I really don't know a good way to fix it. Give harbors more upkeep when railroads are discovered? Make the bonus reliant on building some other building you create after railroads are invented that has a bigger upkeep?Make the game only give the special railroad bonuses to cities connected by rails?
Different in Alpha Centauri though. Associated a lot of "human" qualities with Lady Diedre if you know what I mean....I thought I did, until you added "if you know what I mean".
I'm not sure how much I agree with you there. Playing as the Hive, I often found myself allied with Zakharov, feeling that we're similar enough in means though we may have different end goals. It just ruins it when Zakharov tells me, "I've had enough of your brutal nihilism!" and declares war.Zakharov doesn't strike me as nihilist in any but perhaps the technical sense...and probably not that "Brutal nihilism," perhaps something like militant Randism, is something that no one save the brutal nihilist himself is likely to like...
Regardless, both societies are nihilistic in nature and based on the whole "end justifying the means" concept. As much as it makes sense that Zakharov would disagree with the Hive's system, it makes next to no sense for Zakharov to insult the Hive for its nihilism and invade it after years of technology trading and brotherhood.That's like saying that it makes no sense for Muslims to attack Christians for their Christianity because they both follow the same God. The problem Zakharov has isn't with "the ends justify the means," so much as the specific ends. He's a less extreme/brutal nihilist.
The thing with Alpha Centauri is that all the different philosophies have their own merits and downsides. The Hive was Yang's own personal power splurge as much as the University was Zakharov's own personal mad scientist operation. Yang does not do it merely for personal power and ruthlessness, he does it because he actually believes in what he's preaching as does every other leader. The Hive is based on a philosophy that the individual must always succumb to the masses for the benefit of the entire hive, with no mere individual mattering at all in comparison to any benefit to the hive as a whole.And Zakharov doesn't like that brutal aspect of the Hive's nihilist tendencies.
It does suppress intellectualism, but it's really the kind of "Let's just get everything done as soon as possible" focus with no regard for the pain caused to an individual in comparison to whatever benefit received by the human race as a whole. Anyway, let's get back on the topic of Civ 5, which I'm installing right now.
Oh there is one another thing that bugs me. Research, best way to do it is to conquer huge amount of cities. Smaller nations have hard time catching up. I liked how it was done in EUIII. More realistic in my opinion, let's look at actual history, relatively small countries like Great Britain or Spain grew to be global super powers thanks to advanced technology. Hopefully someone will mod it in.1. Spain was fairly large for European nations, wasn't it?
I have found all of the narrations and quotes to be lack luster. Even with Nimoy reading them they would have fallen short. In Civ 4 it seemed like all the tech quotes pertained directly to the technology or to the era the technology was created. For example, internal combustion (or whatever) in Civ 4 had Henry Ford saying "You can have the Model T in any color you want, so long as it is black." Directly referencing the event or someone important to the event. In Civ 5 the quote is "Any man who can safely operate a car while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves" by Albert Einstein. In Civ 5 the quotes just seem to reference whatever it is you researched. Kind of disappointing.Agreed, it's annoying.
While I agree that the tech quotes are lackluster, this rates about a 2 on my 1-10 importance scale. :DAgreed.
The combat more than makes up for it IMHODisagreed. See above.
I need to prefect my early game strat. I have trouble with everything, wonders, money, culture. It seems like I do nothing correctly except war.That's amusing to me, because war's the thing I have the most trouble with.
*looks that up*Oh, and that monolith with achievements. Sure it was doing nothing, but I still enjoyed getting them ahead of enemies.Beat the hell out of Civ 2's throne room, that's for damn sure. Nothing's as cool as Civ 1's palace builder though :(
According to one prominent Civ IV modder (the lead on RiFE), Civ V is far easier to modify than IV, but there are certain impediments to producing overhauls. Overhauls are the mods we most often notice and talk about.So, you can add/change individual units and civs, but you can't change how gameplay works in any meaningful way?
Not to mention the FFH2 mod for Civ 4 turns it into one of the best and most fun strategy games I've ever played. I actually think FFH2 has ruined any other turn based strategy game for me, because it's -that- good I always find myself wishing other games had certain aspects from FFH2 included. :-PI should look into that mod if I ever get ahold of Civ IV.
Indeed.Well, clearly atheism itself will be a religion; witness the "reason" civics and the USSR.???
Yes really he should have said he prefers Civ 4, with the two massive expansions and all the bug fixes, to Civ 5. In which case I would agree with him.So, you want to compare to the buggy version?
Greece, stop fucking about >.>Either the AI is stone dumb or secretly brilliant and evil.
If you ask me to join a war, do not dive out of it the moment I join! Now everyone thinks I'm a warmonger!
I hate steam now. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU ADVERTISE THE WORKSHOP, LET ALONE RELEASE IT, IF ONE HALF OF THE USERS(The Mac users, to be percise) CAN'T USE IT?"In the real world, the vast, vast majority (85% to 90%) of personal/home computers run some version of Microsoft Windows. In particular, the majority of engineers, accountants, self-employed people and teachers use Windows PCs. A fairly small number of geeks, a decently large number of data centers and supercomputer labs, and many, many scientists also run Unix-like systems, particularly Linux. This leaves Apple Macintoshes as the minority interest mainly of a small minority of college students, academics, and a number of "creative" types — artists, writers, musicians, etc."
Well, yeah. That's kind of what happened in real life. It's not like the America's were just empty.Kind of. However, much of the Americas, plus Australia, Polynesia, Africa, northern Europe, and assorted other places never really felt the touch of civilization, whatever your definition, due to factors ranging from climate to soil quality to simply not having any domesticable species...none of which Civilization does, or should, support. If the real world worked like your suggested mod, every continent save perhaps Antarctica would have been full of civilizations, some developing faster or slower than others, but all being reasonably developed.
Because civ 5 is not an empire builder, it's a wargame.With war being an annoying series of cities you need to whittle down the health of slowly.
honestly, the way theyre implemented they're just like "fuck you" victories. I turn them off every time I play.I dunno. Seems like a certain quote about GalCiv applies...something about how such victories are like those missions where you need to hold the base for five minutes, except that it's "hold half the galaxy for five years". If you're failing, you're unlikely to get enough research/culture/whatever to win that way.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I gave it a try.I noticed it on the workshop, but ignored it because I had no interest in having blizzard in civ.
Same.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
TL;DR: The newest installment in the Civ series had some neat ideas, but I think they were rather clumsily implemented.Presumably so that taking cities is a major accomplishment, as opposed to a natural extension of having a bigger military in the area. In my opinion, that combined with units routinely surviving combat is a much better way of doing things. You can have nice little sieges now, as opposed to smashing your units against theirs until they all die or it becomes clear you're not going to make it with what you've got left.
Also, is there a way around the difficulties I've had with waging war? You know, cities not really ever dying (seriously, why can't you march a military unit into an unguarded city anymore?) and not being able to move units into position as fast as they're produced.
...I found the rest of the discussion interesting, too.
Did you really read through the entire thread just to post that?
Jesus, GWG, why did you make a megapost replying to FOUR YEAR OLD posts?...
Anyhow:The problem is that siege units are not exactly the lowest-tech units. War being impossible until the medieval era...doesn't make sense, from a gameplay or a simulationist perspective. Also, they're slow enough that by the time they get there, the units I've sent to soften up the cities are blocking the way. This wouldn't be a problem without the one-unit-per-tile restriction; however, combining the two means that in order to wage war, I need to either waste tons of time with hordes of archers and pikemen dealing with the unguarded city, or else delay the war so the siege engines can come in. It's just not fun.
Re: Sieges
Sieges are fairly straightforward. If you use, y'know, siege units. If you're using infantry, you're basically telling a bunch of soldiers to charge the walls with ladders, while under defender fire. Or hacking at the gate with whatever they are armed with. Sure, it will eventually work if you throw enough bodies at it, but it's hilariously inefficient.
What you're supposed to do is bombard the defenders into submission, then march in triumphantly with the infantry or armor to take care of the actual assuming control part.
During the sieging part, the role of melee troops is to shield the ranged attackers from enemy infantry and taking out ranged units which could damage them. For small cities, the whole siege won't last longer than like three turns.
I believe the change was partially caused by the attempt to make cities more quality over quantity, so that you wouldn't have some guy who forgot doing research marching into the capital of modern-age country with his warriors and taking over the city because the defender forgot to put troops in it because that would be obviously pretty silly.
Let us say you intend to invade (in real life), say, new york city and that there are no 'units' aka no organized armed forces in said city.New York City has pretty few guns, as far as things go. But that's beside the point. Any fighting force of reasonable size and qualtity would be able to take NYC without much issue. (Not to mention that the police force should count as at least a small garrison.)
Do you think that because there are no organized military units in the city (for whatever reason) that there would be no resistance? You would have people popping out of every window and hole firing guns at you. When you are 'attacking the city' you are putting down the city's militia and civilian resistance.
And really it isn't even that hard to do. A few archers behind your swordsmen and you will take the city in a turn or three.
I'm not sure if it's because the community isn't there, or if Civ5 just isn't has moddable as Civ4.Elsewhere in the thread, I've heard people say Civ V is easier to mod at the surface (ie, adding new units) but harder to mod at the core (ie, add new mechanics).
It's hard to take a city when the city is trying to kill you.
Also, improvised weapons. Never underestimate them.
And no, that's not how it's been working out. I say this from experience, with far more than a few units. Unless swordsmen are that much better than the pikemen and horsemen I've had access to?Could you give specifics? You're complaining about having to move pikemen to make room for your slow catapults in one breath, and then claiming it's taking you dozens of turns to take a city in another.
I don't see how you can say that with so much real life recent examples in the last ten years.Examples of what, exactly?
I'd imagine any city has a garrison, city watch, police force, etc. (depending on the era) as well, if militias alone don't satisfy you.And none of those are professional armies. Maybe they could provide a barrier to some underteched army, but not if there's enough of them to literally surround the cities, or if they are actually up to current standards.
You say that like they're contradictory.And no, that's not how it's been working out. I say this from experience, with far more than a few units. Unless swordsmen are that much better than the pikemen and horsemen I've had access to?Could you give specifics? You're complaining about having to move pikemen to make room for your slow catapults in one breath, and then claiming it's taking you dozens of turns to take a city in another.
The former sounds kind of trivial, like you're complaining about not being able to smoothly avalanche another empire away in one giant wave like you could in previous games. With the damage cities can do to attacking forces, I'm not even sure how the latter is possible unless you're cycling out (or maybe Branniganing and the replacing) just a handful of troops that aren't quite up to the task.It's less "War is hard wah" and more "Okay, I've got enough troops to cover their countryside. The city is surrounded with waves of troops. This shouldn't take forever. Why is it taking forever?"
It makes sense for sieges to take years at some points in history from a realism perspective, since they were often won by attrition. But by 19th century tech with riflemen and cannons, one cannon volley and one rifleman unit should probably be enough to take a city without a garrisoned army in one turn with minor losses (from the local forces defending forts and what not). By WW1 tech, one infantry should be able to do the same with no losses, with cities by that point serving exclusively as a terrain modifier for defending armies. By WWII tech, taking undefended cities shouldn't even require a unit's turn to end. The idea that cities continue to have a health bar and effective fortifications without a stationed army into those periods is beyond silly, from a realism standpoint. But arguing realism in a game like Civ is also ridiculous, so to each his own I guess.
Have you heard of the little country of Afghanistan?
Or that whole conflict in Vietnam?
Or the city of Stalingrad?
How many hundreds of cities and towns in WWII were occupied without the invaders firing a shot?
I'd imagine what's happening here is inefficient movement as well as incorrect assessment of risk.Two considerations.
Movement in Civ5 is extremely punishing relative to other civ games. One false hex and your one unit will be obliterated. Also, given how much more valuable each unit is in Civ 5, losing just the one can easily lose you the war.
A nooblet to the game will probably make these kind of mistakes often, and given that obviously he can't be making any mistakes, the game must be fucking wrong. It's clearly the logical answer.
Personally, I've taken cities with just two or three units and so has the AI.
Though I'm not really sure what's going on with this thread as this flamewar came out of nowhere.
If you play "soft" and give ground to the AI you can get them to overextend pretty easily and thus isolate and destroy their units – do this before trying to take cities (unless the city is itself isolated).The units were destroyed before my attempted siege.
It makes sense for sieges to take years at some points in history from a realism perspective, since they were often won by attrition.Older-era turns are individually longer than any historical sieges.
Yeah, but you also have a single city in Civ 5 effectively taking up, say, the Entirety of France. So it can represent the resistance of the area as a whole, not just the specific city combat.Even ignoring how such things should be represented with units in the area rather than just making cities impossible to take over in a reasonable amount of time, I haven't seen normal (ie, non-city-state and non-early-game) civs without a few cities.
How about this. Take the 10 largest cities in the worlds largest countries and try to occupy them without firing a shot. You would run up against a huge resistance even if that countries entire military was off on the other side of it or invading a foreign land.Well, that depends. How many troops are you invading with? And what, exactly, qualifies as "huge resistance"? Is it enough for them to try, or would they need to drive off your army? (Not to mention that citizens having good weapons relative to the military is a pretty new thing, discounting pre-military times; a peasant with a pitchfork is no match for an armed, armored knight or even footsoldier. And, of course, modern citizens' firearms are outclassed by a variety of military technology.)
I'd imagine what's happening here is inefficient movement as well as incorrect assessment of risk.Two considerations.
Movement in Civ5 is extremely punishing relative to other civ games. One false hex and your one unit will be obliterated. Also, given how much more valuable each unit is in Civ 5, losing just the one can easily lose you the war.
A nooblet to the game will probably make these kind of mistakes often, and given that obviously he can't be making any mistakes, the game must be fucking wrong. It's clearly the logical answer.
Personally, I've taken cities with just two or three units and so has the AI.
Though I'm not really sure what's going on with this thread as this flamewar came out of nowhere.
1. I've surrounded cities to the point that I can't get new units in. I'm pretty sure that "inefficient unit placement" isn't the issue.
2. If unit placement is so important to warfare, why is there nothing giving us hints on how to do it?!?
(Not to mention that citizens having good weapons relative to the military is a pretty new thing, discounting pre-military times; a peasant with a pitchfork is no match for an armed, armored knight or even footsoldier.)
Crossbows of the calibre that can pierce a nobleman's custom-made tempered plate deep enough to incapacitate him were often quite expensive and the people who had the technical skills to produce them scarce. This is not to mention that the bolt shafts that were loosed needed to be specially made, and the bolt heads of a comparable hardness and tenacity to the plate itself to achieve any significant penetration to wound a man.This all sounds... counter to what I have read before. Could you provide a source?
Even if crossbows were the armor-piercing wonders often claimed, they were not exactly common among peasants (like firearms are in the modern era, in many areas). In fact, I can't think of anywhere that suggested anyone but the military would own a crossbow. After all, normal bows are perfectly good for any kind of non-peasant-uprising shooty stuff a peasant would do; awfully suspicious, neh?Didn't notice that any peasant could train to use a crossbow in a week or two? You may be aware of England's superior longbow armies. To have them, they required their populace to train with longbows from a young age in order to build their muscles to the point where they would be able to actually use the things in war. It gave them an advantage, to be sure, but it's not like a video game where you can just go from crossbows to longbows without any training and have no issues.
Anyways. I started a game of Civ V to refresh my memory and put some of your tips into practice, but you know how it goes; you're just playing a bit and before you know it it's midnight and you've barely started what you came in to do.Yeah. That happens if I start reading long forum posts. GOOD LUCK!
I love how your "rebuttal" touched on none of my actual points.Even if crossbows were the armor-piercing wonders often claimed, they were not exactly common among peasants (like firearms are in the modern era, in many areas). In fact, I can't think of anywhere that suggested anyone but the military would own a crossbow. After all, normal bows are perfectly good for any kind of non-peasant-uprising shooty stuff a peasant would do; awfully suspicious, neh?Didn't notice that any peasant could train to use a crossbow in a week or two? You may be aware of England's superior longbow armies. To have them, they required their populace to train with longbows from a young age in order to build their muscles to the point where they would be able to actually use the things in war. It gave them an advantage, to be sure, but it's not like a video game where you can just go from crossbows to longbows without any training and have no issues.
I think you need to find yourself a new game GWG. Maybe Starcraft or something.Two units of bowmen. Besieging the city for centuries, and making zero impact.
You send two bowmen against a city state and blame the lack of realism on the fact that you lose.
We have all told you a few times; if you want to take a city bring a mix of units. Infantry with city attack bonus, siege, and archers.1. I had city attack bonuses.
Taking city states is even more sticky... You really have to think hard if the city state is worth it or not. In the vast majority of my games I leave city states alone unless I need their resources badly or Alexander is steamrolling. Attack them means that in the future less will side with you.*shrug* I needed to actually test the mechanics I was complaining about, and I'm the only civilization I've met more than scattered warriors of. I don't know why Napoleon even bothers with that open borders treaty.
Not sure about capitals (or why city-states would use the base city value), but Kathmandu was healing three HP per turn.Barbarians are a nuisance, they only level your units up to 30 experience... I usually expand into someone territory, built wonders they covet an get to be an ass in general, so I can get experience warding off their puny attacks... I rarely kill enemy units with the city bombard.
And there are only so many barbarians you can destroy en route to war. How do you propose I level up units I'm sending to war?
By fighting... outside... sieges? I honestly don't see your point here. You are sending them off on a war. Against enemy units. Which give XP.It was suggested that I not send inexperienced units to war.
Man you are really bad if you can't take a city with 20 dudes. How many ages in technology behind were you? 5? 6?I didn't have "20 dudes". I couldn't fit "20 dudes" around that city. And I'm actually ahead in technology.
You know, for all that the game seems to be trying to do to reduce unit spam, it's amazing how unit spam is the only way to capture even unguarded cities.Don't worry about that, capturing cities is meant to be hard in the start, that is why you don't get siege weaponry before the classical era. The game wants the start to be peaceful.
Find one siege that lasted as long as a decade. How many are there that even lasted a year?
I muted GWG for ignoring previous warnings and continuing to fight with people, but I think quite a few people could have done better in here. Please be civil.Ouch, this probably hurt... I'm sorry if I put fuel in the flame war...
Find one siege that lasted as long as a decade. How many are there that even lasted a year?
1648- 1669 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Candia)
How many hundreds of cities and towns in WWII were occupied without the invaders firing a shot?
I hate trying to justify game design with realism arguments. Scale is thrown out the window. You could argue that occupying a town is like walking through farmed tiles.
All of them. Seriously. I find it impossible to play without the DLCs now.I totally agree!
If you don't want the extra civs which are dirt cheap, Brave New World and Gods and Kings are a must.
So I really wanted to play as the Iroquois, but apparently forests need to be in friendly territory to count as roads for connections. What the hell is up with that? Are there any mods which make all forests count as roads at least for connections for Iroquois? It's not even worth the gold of buying tiles to connect cities via forest in the new world scenario since it's only 150 turns.
Rak, roads only give a benefit WHEN THEY ARE IN ALLIED TERRITORY.
And to be honest, they already have the benefit of Ironless Swordsmen. I really don't want to deal with their Forest Highways as well unless I am attacking them.