First Impressions

[Buccaneer]

True to my gameplay style, I only spread religion to my cities and my city-states; what the AI opponents do is basically irrelevant. Same thing with Embassies - I refuse all such requests, not to mention refusing to get make friends or to get involved in them. I will happily trade with them and I won't antagonize them unless I declare war on them.

 

[Mustakrakish]

First game as Celts didn't go that well... I was so overwhelmed by all the new thingies (religion, espionage, CS, combat changes), I wanted to try it all and forgot to focus on something particular (culture, war, diplomacy/espionage, science or whatnot). Result was a drag that wasn't going anywhere, had to go for domination to end the suffering. I usually just start a new, when I start to feel like the game isn't going to be that interesting/ and or drag, but since it's first game with G&K, I wanted to learn and try everything. So domination it was...

That brings me to something, Goddammit why there is no "yes or no" check on "retire"?! I accidentally chose it when I was going into options menu... AAARRRGGGHH!!! There is NEVER a "yes or no" check where you actually need it!! Anyway learned that I won't be ever "hardcore focusing" on religion, with whoever I play as. After popping a second prophet I realized there's no much need in faith and focusing on religion afterwards except for trying to convert/control everyone (if you're into that kind of thing). Was naturally focusing too much on it, being my first game as Celts, then realized I was behind in culture and science and could have found a better usage for all that effort. Unless I'm missing something. I have a second theoretic guess, that in order to really reap the benefits of faith/religion, one should focus on it like crazy... Isabella kind of, religious fanatic kind of crazy, going piety tree, devouring every possible drop of faith... but meh.

Also espionage, wow... I thought it would bring just as much if not more PITA than fun... and it did.
Have 2 mercantile CS allies, providing me a net of 34 happiness. Lots of effort and money sinked into them.
Suddenly Incan coup in Zanzibar,
moved spy into Zanzibar - coup success,
next turn - Incan coup,
some turns later - coup chance 60% (decided to wait)
some turns later - completed quest, nothing, Inca still ally,
some turns later - coup chance 5% (WTF)
some turns later - money gift, success,
next turn - Incan coup,
gave up,
some more turns later - quests and money, success,
next turn - Incan coup,
gave up.

That's the short version. There's absolutely no way this should go on unchanged. In this particular scenario, there was nothing I could do, nothing except destroying Inca with Nuclear fire and pissing on their graves, which I did later, BUT...
I want to be awarded for all that effort went on focusing on these 2 city states, doing every freakin quest, amassing tons of influence. And instead I'm being punished. All this effort for nothing. I would be fine with this if there was something I could do about it.

Idea

It would be great if coups could be done when rival (me in this case) influence is in between of 60-100. If it's higher than 100 influence, then coup is not possible ("Coup is not possible right now, Celtic presence in this City is too strong" or something like that). That way people who really spent a lot of effort into some city states, wouldn't get screwed.
And how about spies being able to play spy game with each other in a CS? That way, again one could at least fight it. They kill rival spies in your territory as they do in theirs, what about CS? Is there a better place for that classic spy game, than a third party city? Difference is, they would not kill, but compromise the rival spy, sending them into "hideout" and banning entrance to that particular CS for 10 turns. Higher ranking spy would naturally have more chance on compromising the other.

 

[PhilBowles]

True to my gameplay style, I only spread religion to my cities and my city-states; what the AI opponents do is basically irrelevant. Same thing with Embassies - I refuse all such requests, not to mention refusing to get make friends or to get involved in them. I will happily trade with them and I won't antagonize them unless I declare war on them.

I haven't yet worked out what function spreading religion beyond your borders does, or why it's necessarily a bad thing to have an 'enemy' religion spread into your territory (although when one of my cities adopted Buddhism, I couldn't see any way of identifying what Buddhism does or whether my city benefited from it at all). It's interesting in terms of storytelling - Genghis Khan, the only major power to have adopted and kept my religion, is now a staunch ally, while my erstwhile ally and brother in arms Siam eventually denounced me after I (forgetfully) broke a promise to stop spreading Shintoism into his territory while he was spreading Buddhism, so I have the makings of religious conflict. But I don't see a gameplay advantage I gain from spreading religion into another religion's territory (other than the fact that I have the Interfaith Dialogue belief).

lso espionage, wow... I thought it would bring just as much if not more PITA than fun... and it did.

In my current game, I've been ahead of my rivals since before the Renaissance, so when I actually got spies they couldn't take any techs (although I had two of mine stolen by Attila until I told him to stop - when he either did, or failed in subsequent attempts), and with no other powers contesting CS alliance, I had no need of coups (I did end up rigging an election - Bucharest was a Siamese ally when I'd started spying, but they let the alliance lapse. America is more annoyed with me for competing over city states than Siam is).

But there is a fun intrigue element - I was told by Genghis that Attila was planning an attack (which never went ahead - I've kept him pinned down for most of the game - after beating him in the last war, which he started - by having an ongoing defensive pact with Mongolia, who have the forces to defend my formerly Hun-controlled city well outside my main territory), and prepared accordingly. Later, after my missionary zeal had upset the Siamese and the tension was palpable, my own spy learned that Attila was planning an attack on Siam. Naturally I shared this information with Ramkhamhaeng in the hopes of pitting them against one another, especially since one of Attila's negatives was that I'd been denounced by someone they liked more than me (Siam). No effect yet, but it adds to the storytelling.

 

[ptoss1]

I haven't yet worked out what function spreading religion beyond your borders does, or why it's necessarily a bad thing to have an 'enemy' religion spread into your territory (although when one of my cities adopted Buddhism, I couldn't see any way of identifying what Buddhism does or whether my city benefited from it at all). It's interesting in terms of storytelling - Genghis Khan, the only major power to have adopted and kept my religion, is now a staunch ally, while my erstwhile ally and brother in arms Siam eventually denounced me after I (forgetfully) broke a promise to stop spreading Shintoism into his territory while he was spreading Buddhism, so I have the makings of religious conflict. But I don't see a gameplay advantage I gain from spreading religion into another religion's territory (other than the fact that I have the Interfaith Dialogue belief).



In my current game, I've been ahead of my rivals since before the Renaissance, so when I actually got spies they couldn't take any techs (although I had two of mine stolen by Attila until I told him to stop - when he either did, or failed in subsequent attempts), and with no other powers contesting CS alliance, I had no need of coups (I did end up rigging an election - Bucharest was a Siamese ally when I'd started spying, but they let the alliance lapse. America is more annoyed with me for competing over city states than Siam is).

But there is a fun intrigue element - I was told by Genghis that Attila was planning an attack (which never went ahead - I've kept him pinned down for most of the game - after beating him in the last war, which he started - by having an ongoing defensive pact with Mongolia, who have the forces to defend my formerly Hun-controlled city well outside my main territory), and prepared accordingly. Later, after my missionary zeal had upset the Siamese and the tension was palpable, my own spy learned that Attila was planning an attack on Siam. Naturally I shared this information with Ramkhamhaeng in the hopes of pitting them against one another, especially since one of Attila's negatives was that I'd been denounced by someone they liked more than me (Siam). No effect yet, but it adds to the storytelling.

The more widespread your religion is, the more you benefit from your Founder belief (usually), like the +1 Happiness per city following your religion (not saying happiness is hard to get), so technically you could get free bonus happiness just by having your religion spread outside your territory and go on a rampage. I'm guessing, though I'm not sure, these bonuses are true for other AI civs as well. Have to do more research on this.

The "just war" belief is especially useful as it gives your units a +20% combat modifier for attacking a city with the same religion as you. That's a pretty big bonus.

 

[dexters]

Espionage: Not as good as i thought it would be, and clearly the weakest part of the expansion. Its impossible to keep relations with city states now. I focused my whole game trying to do their quests and get influence with them, but found out that as soon as i got an ally there would be a coup and i would loose it one or two turns after.

Yep, the coup thing seems a bit too harsh. Yes if they fail they lose their spy, but they'll get a new one in a few turns and plant it back in.

I've litterally spend thousands and thousands of gold because 2 Civs kept kicking off coups in a CS.

There needs to be a number of adjustments to espionage, vis-a-vis city states it should be.

1) Failure = lose your spy and the CS declares the Civ persona non-grata, making future ally status locked out for 30 turns.
2) Spy vs. Spy stuff. If a CS is repeated getting hit by coups from a Civ, you can send your spy them to flush them out. When you have a spy there, chances of failure for their coup goes up and if they fail see #1 ; if you flush their spy out, see #1
3) expanded diplomacy for Civs to interact with each other about coup attempts.
I see So and so has performed a coup on X city state, but all I can do is denounce them if I haven't already. That's too general, there should be dialogue and diplo modifiers around telling them that you consider city states under your sphere of influence
4) Make agreements to stay out of certain city states a tradeable item on the trade table. This can be done in peacetime where you can pay off an AI to stay out, or it can be part of a peace deal.
I've gone to war with AI's over their coup attempts and election rigging, yet short of wiping them out I'm never sure if they got the message. So there's no way to interact with them in that dimension in-game.

 

[MadDjinn]

There needs to be a number of adjustments to espionage, vis-a-vis city states it should be.

1) Failure = lose your spy and the CS declares the Civ persona non-grata, making future ally status locked out for 30 turns.
2) Spy vs. Spy stuff. If a CS is repeated getting hit by coups from a Civ, you can send your spy them to flush them out. When you have a spy there, chances of failure for their coup goes up and if they fail see #1 ; if you flush their spy out, see #1
3) expanded diplomacy for Civs to interact with each other about coup attempts.
I see So and so has performed a coup on X city state, but all I can do is denounce them if I haven't already. That's too general, there should be dialogue and diplo modifiers around telling them that you consider city states under your sphere of influence
4) Make agreements to stay out of certain city states a tradeable item on the trade table. This can be done in peacetime where you can pay off an AI to stay out, or it can be part of a peace deal.
I've gone to war with AI's over their coup attempts and election rigging, yet short of wiping them out I'm never sure if they got the message. So there's no way to interact with them in that dimension in-game.

The formula for the couping needs a small tweak, but it's not bad. It does actually include increased difficulty if the CSs ally has a spy there (based upon the spies level).

An adjustment would be to reduce the max % chance down by the level of the defending spy *5 (so a level 3 spy allows a 70% max chance to coup).

Though, failing a coup = spy dies + the INF with the CS is dropped to -10. So they can lose 100's of INF if they fail.

As per the rest, yes it's a missing part of the game.

 

[binhthuy71]

Other 'second impressions' generally:
- Like the multiple quest options with CSes, but there seem to be too many quests once you've run across a few CSes, or the influence gain from completing them is too high. It seems whatever I do I please some random CS, and it feels I need to put much less effort into obtaining friends and allies, particularly early in the game. I'm also finding it less important to specialise by CS type (although with happiness so easy to come by generally, mercantile city-states don't appear to be much use) - I'm getting big boosts to culture and faith, enhanced growth in the capital, and occasional military units without actively playing a CS diplomacy game.

All of your points were well taken as usual. I zeroed in on the above because it highlights some of the reasons why I'm re-thinking my CS strategy post-G&K.

The new CS types are nice to see and I hope to someday find ways to leverage their unique attributes in ways that are important to my game. As they are, neither offers a compelling reason to ally.

The added quest types are good in that they've added ways to build influence without spending gold. I do not at the moment make game decisions solely to fulfill a quest.

It strikes me as close to broken that a long-standing CS alliance can be undone by one cheap-shot espionage gambit. Some value of influence + number of consecutive turns under alliance should prevent or substantially deter espionage against a CS.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Finally won a OCC Cultural Victory with Ethiopia,Emperor Difficulty,Ice age,with Austria being the runaway civ on other continent . Now I understand why so many people complain that Austria is OP . She(Maria Theresa) had bought HALF of the city-states in the game and wiped out ALMOST HALF of the 9 Civilizations . Probably I should lower the difficulty next time,because it was way more harder than Civ5 Vanilla . One thing I learned is that Austria need something to stop her to buy so many city-states . Probably the solution is Greece+Siam .

By the way,I think this expansion is fantastic .

 

[Morningcalm]

One small thing I wish they fixed: workers who are near barbarians getting scared (when I say near I mean anywhere within 4 tiles it looks like). It's annoying to constantly have to reclick them to get them working. There should at least be an option to turn that off. "WORKERS ARE SCARED AND NEEDS ORDERS." Sigh.

Maria Theresa's ability is in serious need of a nerf, as previously suggested. I'd suggest 1000 gold vs. 500, that'll hopefully cut down her simply buying the CSes off.

Also, I wish the AIs would be more intelligent about how they fight each other. I've never seen AIs wiped out by other AI except in certain very limited circumstances. Usually no one stands up to a runaway AI either. Example: In one game, Augustus was a runaway leader, having nearly taken out all of Gandhi's cities. Gandhi had a surprisingly large army, and I declared friendship with him, then agreed to wage war on Augustus. As I was fighting, I noticed how idle Gandhi's units were...and I thought, "Why can't we, like in Civ IV, suggest attack locales for the AI?

"Why don't you attack....Rome."
"We'll do our best!"

I wish diplomacy in Civ V made better use of the recorded lines also. From the XML, you can see they had "Happy," "Neutral" and "Angry" lines for just about everything. Currently Neutral and Happy lines are used for the regular trade request, etc. But there's no use of Demand or Gloat, and Wu is still missing her "Peaceful" reaction (so I wonder what she'll do when her spy's been executed...it's very bizarre and atmosphere-killing to see Wu shift into her next frame when she agrees to peace).

 

[dexters]

Well I've only played 1 full game so far, and the only runaway is me, but a very slow one as I was playing a meandering game exploring the various new features.

Two mid tier AIs have managed to finish off their neighbours - Caesar and Rameses.
3 if you count Haiwatha who finished off the Byzantines with me.

Could be just your game. Flavours change a lot depending on Civ mix and if you get a lot of builders bunched together, they often don't do much to each other even if they fight.

 

[ptoss1]

One small thing I wish they fixed: workers who are near barbarians getting scared (when I say near I mean anywhere within 4 tiles it looks like). It's annoying to constantly have to reclick them to get them working. There should at least be an option to turn that off. "WORKERS ARE SCARED AND NEEDS ORDERS." Sigh.

Maria Theresa's ability is in serious need of a nerf, as previously suggested. I'd suggest 1000 gold vs. 500, that'll hopefully cut down her simply buying the CSes off.

Also, I wish the AIs would be more intelligent about how they fight each other. I've never seen AIs wiped out by other AI except in certain very limited circumstances. Usually no one stands up to a runaway AI either. Example: In one game, Augustus was a runaway leader, having nearly taken out all of Gandhi's cities. Gandhi had a surprisingly large army, and I declared friendship with him, then agreed to wage war on Augustus. As I was fighting, I noticed how idle Gandhi's units were...and I thought, "Why can't we, like in Civ IV, suggest attack locales for the AI?

"Why don't you attack....Rome."
"We'll do our best!"

I wish diplomacy in Civ V made better use of the recorded lines also. From the XML, you can see they had "Happy," "Neutral" and "Angry" lines for just about everything. Currently Neutral and Happy lines are used for the regular trade request, etc. But there's no use of Demand or Gloat, and Wu is still missing her "Peaceful" reaction (so I wonder what she'll do when her spy's been executed...it's very bizarre and atmosphere-killing to see Wu shift into her next frame when she agrees to peace).

This is a bit off topic, but somewhat related. I've noticed allied CS units being more aggressive than before. Now when I'm at war with someone, they actually send out units to attack enemies outside their borders (to a degree, they're not going cross country), and not just ranged units, melee units too. As for the runaway civs, in my first game Polynesia was unstoppable. Unfortunately I didn't see him for most of the game. What happened was everybody befriended each other. I was wondering why nobody was attacking anybody until I realized Polynesia had like twice the points any other civ did, so everybody was friends and kept denouncing Polynesia. That didn't stop him though and he proceeded to swallow up Sweden on my continent.

 

[binhthuy71]

One small thing I wish they fixed: workers who are near barbarians getting scared (when I say near I mean anywhere within 4 tiles it looks like). It's annoying to constantly have to reclick them to get them working. There should at least be an option to turn that off. "WORKERS ARE SCARED AND NEEDS ORDERS." Sigh.

That behavior is particularly sigh-worthy when I have a military unit standing guard on the same tile as the Worker.

 

[Brimstone]

Celts
Fractal (2 big blob continents next to each other )
Emperor
Standard
Epic
Raging Barbs
Won with Domination 503ish turns
All of Liberty, all of the, uh, CS tree (not worth it imo), a few in the science tree for happiness, and the 1st one of order
3 Golden ages from happiness alone. I think I had 70 happiness at one point. I didn't build happiness buildings until late renaissance!

Over all, I like the expansion, but it has some issues naturally. The absolute most frustrating thing about it is the bug they introduced in the patch before the expansion. The unit icons disappearing after battle and not reappearing until you move the unit. This needs to be fixed pronto!

Religion is ok. Another buff train like the social polices. Crazy amount of options which is nice, I need to explore it further before a determination can be made. Looks to be mostly an early ages buff as it's supposed to be.

Spies. Kinda like a side game. Ok for distraction, but CS's flip like pancakes in the expansion. Not really useful except for examining a city to see what they building while prepping for invasion. Tried all the other options. Meh.

War needs work. I didn't notice the AI playing any better. But the 100 hitpoint thing bites. No lie, I hit a Swordsman in the open with a Cannon, then had to hit twice with 2 different 100% healed Musketmen to kill it. Crazy. Giant quagmires trying to plow through units to get to cities. Everything is too hard to kill, well, not hard, but takes to many hits to eliminate it. It was like this throughout the ages.

The change to the way the turns go is frustrating. Hitting end turn just means that you are only halfway done. The other way had some issues, but this way is more frustrating I find. Especially after a minute or two, you realized that your aren't waiting on the AI to take it's turn, the game is waiting on you to re-finish your turn. Can't we just have a button that ends the turn, regardless if units still haven't been given orders? The every-unit-must-have-orders style is starting to wear on me I guess.

Great Scientists nerfed hard. I'm ok with it, just need to adjust.

Stealth Bombers nerfed hard. Way to late to be useful.

Pikemen upgrade to Lancers? One of them most useful units upgrades to the least useful. Odd choice.

Military CS's give some odd units. Like other civs UU. I got a lot of landschrects and the unpronounceable horse unit from the danes. Not complaining, but working as expected? Maritime CS's should give ships imo.

WTF am I supposed to do with the HERD of great generals I earn? Can't pop them for golden ages, and the fort is extremely situational. I think great artists are the only great people you can pop for golden ages. I ended the game with 7 generals. Working as expected?

Ships seem ok. Super nice for capital sniping. That's how I finished the domination for the last civ. Rowed in with 4 or 5 destroyers and a couple of battleships. Capital dead in 2 turns. Nice, gonna abuse this big time.

I see several new map types.

I found tanks to be more useful, mostly because units take forever to die. WWI tanks were fun, but the WWI bombers seemed weak, which they were. Only really useful to build up a stash of them to upgrade later.

The game lets you move around the map during the AI's turn much much better. Mostly smooth with no locking you in place as your CPU works. Very nice. This has been on my wish list since Civ 1.

Good expansion, needs some tweeking.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The more I've played, the more I'm coming to a similar conclusion. Religious benefits are good - particularly Holy Warriors - but I'm not having a lot of incentive to spread religion and don't seem to suffer unduly from not having it in most of my cities (unless they're strategically-placed - for instance Uxmal is closer to Hun territory than Palenque or Tikal, so it would be helpful to be able to faith-buy catapults there).

I tinkered a bit with the believes & enhancers - I you chose the right ones, there can be a tremendous effect. I played an OCC game and selected "Tith" + "Religious Texts" when I founded my religion. Even without actively spreading my religion, I ended up with +40 gold per. If I had used missionaries and great prophets to convert other cities, that might have increased the count even more.

The religion bonus scales quite well as city pop goes up and as long as you play a tall empire (~1-4 cities), you will still receive some decent benefits.

One thing that should be nerfed, though, is the fact that a great prophet can convert the holy city of another religion with only 1 spread action. It takes a long time to recover from that, since you cannot produce missionaries of your own faith in that city when it happens - and the only defence seems to deny open borders...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, so I've had more time to play the game, & have the following impressions:

1) Still loving the diplomatic element of the game-both William & Theodora are friendly with me, even after this far into the game. Meanwhile, my relationship with Attila just goes from bad to worse. He's constantly bullying the City-States (forcing me to warn him against it, & even Denouncing him at one point-a move followed up by Theodora. He's also constantly popping in to warn me how weak my armies are (too true I fear), & now he's declared war on Gandhi-my neighbour-which I'm afraid means war with him is now *inevitable*. That is the one thing I'm finding, is that diplomacy with City-States & Major Civilizations is having far, far more impact on how I play my game.
On the downside, although the Civs do come & seek you out more often, I still don't see them doing it enough for my liking. Hopefully a patch will fix that.

2) Speaking of City States, I'm still *really* enjoying that element of the game. Pledging to protect them & generally trying to curry their favour now has much greater impact on the broader game-which can only be a good thing. Had it not been for this element, I'd probably have sat back & let Attila bully them to his hearts content .

3) Religion is fantastic, though I still clearly don't understand it enough. I Founded Taoism, & selected Papal Primacy & Choral Music as my beliefs (though now I'm thinking Holy Warriors might have been better ). However, I'm still not sure how to use Missionaries to spread religion to City States....anyone with any advice would be appreciated!

4) Combat AI. OK, in spite of my complaints about barbarians, I'm thankful to say this does *not* seem to apply to the major Civs. Attila has declared war on Gandhi &-let me tell you-he did *not* do it by half measures. He made excellent use of both his UU's & his "grunt" units, & took one of Gandhi's cities in only 2 turns.....and with minimal damage to his own units. Seeing that has made me *very* glad that I upgraded my warriors to swordsmen recently, my archer to composite bowmen & that I have a Great General & Spearmen in my midst!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As a side note, as much as I do love the new diplomacy system, I do feel it lacks a certain.....depth. In particular, I'd love to see them bring back the 2 tiers of positive/negative relations (at the moment you just have hostile & friendly).

I'd also like them to have more than just "Afraid". I'd like to see a "Respect" setting if the Civ likes you, & a setting for if you're significantly weaker than you-depending on whether they like or dislike you. I'd also like to see them bring back "Pacts of Secrecy" from the Renaissance onwards.

I'd also like it if Religion played a bigger part in diplomatic relations-but not in the passive & over-dominant fashion we saw in Civ4. What I'd prefer is a system where you can adopt a State Religion (which must be followed by at least 20% of your empire), which will give you an initial large boost to relations with the founder of the religion-depending on their piety/religious focus. This boost would then decay quickly unless you actively do everything possible to advance the interests of that Religion.

Anyway, that's just some spit-balling on my part. I'd be interested to hear what others think .

Aussie.

 

[@nthony]

Finished my first game yesterday just on Chieftan, but with Caesar's Rome (chosen randomly) and on a 'Europe' map. The Computer placed me in the far south eastern corner in a desert area that didn't have much in ways of resource, and I had to conquer my way out of having Gemany to my north, The Celts to my north-west, before I could eventually found Iron. Once I got to this point it was pretty plain sailing towards a domination victory by 1600AD.

The Europe map script is very interesting one, giving two seperate continents in a way joined by a pinch-point - this pinch-point just happened to be where the AI settled me!

Despite not having any advantage of being a 'new' civ, I still managed to found the first religion ahead of the Celts not sure how!?

Anyway, loving the game and about to crank up on a new map, and a new difficulty level.

 

[nokmirt]

I'd like to see a coinciding number value attached to each AI civ, so you can see how you stack up with them relation wise. Also, I feel your foreign advisor should give you some pointers or suggestions on how to repair diplo relations with civs that have a less than savory view of you. The other thing she could do is warn you about certain civs. Don't trust the Germans, they attacked the Celts and ruthlessly sacked three of their cities. You should gain more favorable relations with the Byzantines, send a request to them for the exchange of embassies. Once you do that except open borders, and try to gain a DoF. I believe they can be trusted. Things like that. I feel this could make diplomacy more interesting. Your advisors should have a role in the game. All kings should listen to advice and suggestions.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I'd like to see a coinciding number value attached to each AI civ, so you can see how you stack up with them relation wise. Also, I feel your foreign advisor should give you some pointers or suggestions on how to repair diplo relations with civs that have a less than savory view of you. The other thing she could do is warn you about certain civs. Don't trust the Germans, they attacked the Celts and ruthlessly sacked three of their cities. You should gain more favorable relations with the Byzantines, send a request to them for the exchange of embassies. Once you do that except open borders, and try to gain a DoF. I believe they can be trusted. Things like that. I feel this could make diplomacy more interesting. Your advisors should have a role in the game. All kings should listen to advice and suggestions.

I don't agree with you regarding number values. We had that in Civ4 & it was *way* too gamey. I wouldn't mind someone bringing out a Mod to bring this back, but I'm actually perfectly fine with their current approach of colour coding what factors are contributing to mood, & to what degree.

I do agree with you, however, that Foreign Advisors should be of greater assistance in the ways you mention !

Aussie.

 

[Cromat]

I've held up getting Civ V because the intense backlash against it.
Is it more like Civ IV now, which I really liked, or is it still deeply flawed?