SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I daresay that it will be regarded as the best iteration of civ to date . . . much like when civV released, when 6 comes out you will hear complaints that it isn't as good as 5.
Is this expansion any good? Review Brave New World
- Thread starter Disgustipated
- Start date
Idk what your standards are, so this could be completely terrible for you, but I've been comfortably playing (two games won now, one King the other Emp) with 7-9 settler-built cities from fairly early on. Managing budget and happiness is definitely now more of an issue . . . but, tbh, previously it was been moire of an issue in that everything came so easily and with minimal management.
This expansion has been the economy/infrastructure expansion for me, even though it doesn't have any main "builder-oriented" features. I feel those that exist come together nicely to form a [thin] meta layer for my preferred playstyle.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,965
I give it an 8. I had high expectations, and I feel that this expansion has met them for the most part. It's not a tour de force, but it is a solid addition to the series.
learner gamer
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 657
6/10 from me.
As mentioned in a couple of other posts, I think the game provides a tantalising glimpse of what Civ 5 could become. However, Ed Beach's decision to retain certain mechanics like global happiness and set that happiness cap so low in the early game means that I found myself once again running into turns when I had little to do, once early exploration had been finished. The game's continued lack of early game hammers (even when working hammer heavy tiles) also contributed to this problem.
Nerfs meanwhile to science on top of the drag to social policy gains as you settle more cities also seem to make it much harder to open with anything other than around 4 cities, which you then develop. In that respect at least I'd say that game balance has actually worsened since G&K. Ideally I'd love to see a strategy game present the gamer with lots of viable options rather than Firaxis nerf alternative approaches into the ground.
That's not to say that there aren't some great new things in the game. Trade routes for instance are a great new addition IMHO, arguably the best in the life of Civ 5. They certainly reinforce the need to immerse your civ in the game world and also bring into sharp focus the diplomatic and financial penalties needing to be faced by successful warmongers.
The irony IMHO meanwhile is that, even assuming that global happiness - which vies with maintenance on buildings for my vote as the worst game mechanic introduced in the Civ 5 series - is retained, I think that a number of small changes could easily improve my perception of the game markedly. Adding perhaps just a few more hammers and gold to the palace for instance would likely enable the gamer to bring their cities online a little faster and give them more to do per turn in the early game. (It might also help the AI if part of the reason for it's alleged lack of aggression is it's own lack of early game gold.) I also think there's a need to either nudge the global happy cap a little higher or reintroduce additional happiness in a social policy to allow the gamer alternative ways to play the game. Not everyone wants to sit on approximately four cities for a thousand years to stay under the global happiness cap.
To counterbalance these changes, other tweaks could then be made to slow production and wealth gains in the mid game to prevent the gamer from running out of things to build in a city. By that time, the gamer might not overly care that gains are harder to come by because, assuming they've spent their early gold and hammers wisely, they'll still be making a sufficient of decisions per turn to sustain their interest in the game. And of course, they'll find themselves interacting (whether peacefully or otherwise) with the AI to provide them with things to do per turn.
That's why my main takeaway from the couple of starts I've played is that this could be the game that sees it's most significant improvements coming from a mod (eg. developed by Thalassicus), which subtly tweaks the game to provide the gamer with a few more choices per turn. If that can be done, then I think a modded version of BNW could easily score an 8, and perhaps more if Firaxis works to further refine some of the tactical decisions the AI makes in combat.
As mentioned in a couple of other posts, I think the game provides a tantalising glimpse of what Civ 5 could become. However, Ed Beach's decision to retain certain mechanics like global happiness and set that happiness cap so low in the early game means that I found myself once again running into turns when I had little to do, once early exploration had been finished. The game's continued lack of early game hammers (even when working hammer heavy tiles) also contributed to this problem.
Nerfs meanwhile to science on top of the drag to social policy gains as you settle more cities also seem to make it much harder to open with anything other than around 4 cities, which you then develop. In that respect at least I'd say that game balance has actually worsened since G&K. Ideally I'd love to see a strategy game present the gamer with lots of viable options rather than Firaxis nerf alternative approaches into the ground.
That's not to say that there aren't some great new things in the game. Trade routes for instance are a great new addition IMHO, arguably the best in the life of Civ 5. They certainly reinforce the need to immerse your civ in the game world and also bring into sharp focus the diplomatic and financial penalties needing to be faced by successful warmongers.
The irony IMHO meanwhile is that, even assuming that global happiness - which vies with maintenance on buildings for my vote as the worst game mechanic introduced in the Civ 5 series - is retained, I think that a number of small changes could easily improve my perception of the game markedly. Adding perhaps just a few more hammers and gold to the palace for instance would likely enable the gamer to bring their cities online a little faster and give them more to do per turn in the early game. (It might also help the AI if part of the reason for it's alleged lack of aggression is it's own lack of early game gold.) I also think there's a need to either nudge the global happy cap a little higher or reintroduce additional happiness in a social policy to allow the gamer alternative ways to play the game. Not everyone wants to sit on approximately four cities for a thousand years to stay under the global happiness cap.
To counterbalance these changes, other tweaks could then be made to slow production and wealth gains in the mid game to prevent the gamer from running out of things to build in a city. By that time, the gamer might not overly care that gains are harder to come by because, assuming they've spent their early gold and hammers wisely, they'll still be making a sufficient of decisions per turn to sustain their interest in the game. And of course, they'll find themselves interacting (whether peacefully or otherwise) with the AI to provide them with things to do per turn.
That's why my main takeaway from the couple of starts I've played is that this could be the game that sees it's most significant improvements coming from a mod (eg. developed by Thalassicus), which subtly tweaks the game to provide the gamer with a few more choices per turn. If that can be done, then I think a modded version of BNW could easily score an 8, and perhaps more if Firaxis works to further refine some of the tactical decisions the AI makes in combat.
7/10
Some great bits, but if you have no luxuries, or not enough, you cannot expand. Also, the AI seems terrible at actually improving their resources, and any hint of war hinders luxury trade (ie, paying twice/three times as much). They nerfed the theater and the stadium, and I don't understand way - it just worsens happiness. Plus, war is now a bad choice, and the AI have long memories for war. Also, the flow of science is too weak. I would also have liked for great writers etc to be given randomly as well - some art came from guilds, but not all of it.
If they re-balanced the game so that war was desirable, and there was more early game flexibility it would be 9 or 10. I did love the way tensions rose with ideology, but I don't like having to wait that long for tensions, and enough gold to go to war.
Some great bits, but if you have no luxuries, or not enough, you cannot expand. Also, the AI seems terrible at actually improving their resources, and any hint of war hinders luxury trade (ie, paying twice/three times as much). They nerfed the theater and the stadium, and I don't understand way - it just worsens happiness. Plus, war is now a bad choice, and the AI have long memories for war. Also, the flow of science is too weak. I would also have liked for great writers etc to be given randomly as well - some art came from guilds, but not all of it.
If they re-balanced the game so that war was desirable, and there was more early game flexibility it would be 9 or 10. I did love the way tensions rose with ideology, but I don't like having to wait that long for tensions, and enough gold to go to war.
?
There's no official online civilopedia.
There are 2 fanmade ones. An old one, where the author has vanished, and which is not up to date, and a newer one, which is an updated copy of the original one.
digrosz
Dirty Frank
9/10. Almost exceptional. An AI fix here and there, and balancing some things would make a 10/10
VainoValkea
Emperor
I'm talking about the one in-game. The one that shows up when you press F1, you know.
(edit: I wish that one was fanmade, it would probably be better that way)
Princeofnigeria
The illustrious
6/10, and I'll quote another post of mine
"I'm not entirely convince BNW is ready for prime time, and I was much more impressed and infatuated with Gods and Kings. It seems like the AI is slightly off kilter and the new sides seem heavily unbalanced. Tourism is just kind of "out there", feeling really detatched from any of the other mechanics, and the game seems to drag at points. However, with all this said I must admit what this expansiom gets right, it gets right hard. The new side selection all seem perfectly worthy of inclusion, the new trade mechanisms, while agravating at times, add much to diplomacy and the friendhip/ denounce system, and the happiness rebalance is both very noticable and VERY appreciated. I'm still happy with my purchase, but I will be happier a few patches down the road."
"I'm not entirely convince BNW is ready for prime time, and I was much more impressed and infatuated with Gods and Kings. It seems like the AI is slightly off kilter and the new sides seem heavily unbalanced. Tourism is just kind of "out there", feeling really detatched from any of the other mechanics, and the game seems to drag at points. However, with all this said I must admit what this expansiom gets right, it gets right hard. The new side selection all seem perfectly worthy of inclusion, the new trade mechanisms, while agravating at times, add much to diplomacy and the friendhip/ denounce system, and the happiness rebalance is both very noticable and VERY appreciated. I'm still happy with my purchase, but I will be happier a few patches down the road."
Rated it a 10. I hated Civ 5 at launch, bought expansion, played it once. I was strictly a Civ4 player. Never thought I'd find Civ 5 enjoyable. But this xpac is so ambitious by aiming to improve not only Civ5, but the Civ series as a whole, that it makes Civ 5 not only worth playing, but makes me excited about Civ 6 again.
Is it perfect? No, but like I said, it is the most ambitious expansion to date--it is perhaps more ambitious than some of the games themselves.
Is it perfect? No, but like I said, it is the most ambitious expansion to date--it is perhaps more ambitious than some of the games themselves.
djm_jm
Warlord
I am suprised with the BNW.
Great added in the game .
9/10
Great added in the game .
9/10
dojoboy
Tsalagi
BNW is definitely a must buy. Finally some depth, which plays very well for builders.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
I find this site nice for quick references. And, it's not all glossy like the Civilopedia site.
CivV Analyst: BNW
Snuffleupagus
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 167
This game is fantastic. Updates will need to tweak balance, and I really hope they change tourism up a bit - I'm not a fan of mechanics that only serve to place negative on others, they are mostly invisible and less enjoyable. That said it still gets a 10/10 for me.
The main issue I had with vanilla and G&K was that I *never* played a competitive game into the modern era. Either was winning by a ton, or losing by a ton. In my first two BNW games it has remained competitive into the modern ear, with various civs pursusing various victory conditions, and it really felt like a strategy game right until I made a decisive move for the win.
Personally, I think this is due to the LACK of war mongering. With wars more rare, and more difficult, it means less runaway games caused by a few early victories. Personally, I love it.
The main issue I had with vanilla and G&K was that I *never* played a competitive game into the modern era. Either was winning by a ton, or losing by a ton. In my first two BNW games it has remained competitive into the modern ear, with various civs pursusing various victory conditions, and it really felt like a strategy game right until I made a decisive move for the win.
Personally, I think this is due to the LACK of war mongering. With wars more rare, and more difficult, it means less runaway games caused by a few early victories. Personally, I love it.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
Agreed.
My current game as Poland found me among the top 2-3, but losing out in the WC consistently. I was next to last in gaining an ideology (Freedom), which I shared with Dairus (who was behind me in score). Together, we whittled away Hiawatha and now I sit atop heading toward victory. I hope.
True_Candyman
Emperor
Still haven't had much of an opportunity to play it yet! From what i have played though, i like it.
My one complaint though is the main soundtrack. And it's the same complaint that i had with G&K. I don't like it as much as the original soundtrack! I wish there was an option to choose which one will play in the menu, and i'd like to be able to choose my startup cinematic too.
It just doesn't feel like CiV without the original music and cinematic, they always gave me goosebumps!
My one complaint though is the main soundtrack. And it's the same complaint that i had with G&K. I don't like it as much as the original soundtrack! I wish there was an option to choose which one will play in the menu, and i'd like to be able to choose my startup cinematic too.
It just doesn't feel like CiV without the original music and cinematic, they always gave me goosebumps!
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,579
I'm giving it an 8/10 in its current state, which is pretty good given that it's just been release. I expect that with some patches it will go even higher. There are definitely a number of issues that still need to be tweaked and balanced, though.
Similar threads
