Using settler to do it defeats the purpose.
You might as well worldbuilder at that point.
The new patch has made a bad game even worse
- Thread starter kamex
- Start date
You might as well worldbuilder at that point.
Not true. City states do sometimes keep their conquered cities. I'm not sure whether it is random, or whether they do it only if they feel like they can defend it, or whatever.
As for the guy posting an awesome report about it? I did: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=397789
A city state conquered the last capital and won the game for me (it was a bug, because I had already won earlier via science). Not Settler difficulty either; it was Emperor. I had basically won the game already and was just amusing myself by getting the city states to attack the remaining civs.
Interesting stuff.
Not the type of report I'm referring to, but thanks for the screenshots.
Yes, many times. Check out the thread I linked for screenies.
Edit: Ignore this, looks like you edited your post.
Mustakrakish
In 'Node' We Trust
On the higher levels, the game is just unplayable for several reasons:
Ancient combat is now useless, the combination of nerfing horsemen AND increased city defenses and attacks, AND increased city HP regeneration just makes early wars unprofitable. May as well sit at home and build.
This combined with the even more ******ed happy caps has just made conquest of the world impossible. The huge happy penalty for capturing a city, either puppet or raze, which destroys your happiness the next turn, and then weakens your military by 50%
Also, the patch has brought even more misery, in that the handicap AIs can still out tech you, thanks to minimal scientist slots, always has more gold, and can thus always easily beat you to a diplomatic victory and regularly steals your allies throughout the game - meaning city states are now another redundant concept in the game (at least this boosts Mongolia's power of getting rid of the things - oh no, wait you can't, as the unhappiness from even puppeting would ruin you.
So not only has happiness been destroyed already for the reasons mentioned above, now that liberty tree has been nerfed to the point of being useless, and FP nerfed too, big empires are now impossible (unless your an AI where you get +60 happiness on turn 1 for no reason) - there is no way a human can compete.
The diplomacy system puts the last few nails in the coffin. As the AI DOWs and denounces for no good reason, and when one AI denounces you they all do. The explanations only 'explain' what for AI has done, but not why.
In conclusion, I am glad to see the end of horse rushing and ICS, but not to the point where a human can't even compete on Emperor/above.
The game has became a complete joke - its time to boot up Civ IV.
I'm kind of late to the party so to speak. I mean with 6 pages all there is to be said is already probably said, but that post kind of sounds like the game got better, not worse.
I mean it all sounds like positive changes, except for random denouncing. I'm not the only one, right? Maybe I'm understanding it wrong?I am seeing the dichotomy. The initial release of Civ5 was for players of type 1. The patch was for players of type 2. Where we saw many posts from the type 2 players upon release, now we are seeing the opposite.
I think Johnny W said it best. Civ has always been (perception or otherwise) a thinking-man's game. There are many strategy games on the market (both TBS and RTS) that play more casual and simplistic. Civ is not, nor should not be one of them.
I think Johnny W said it best. Civ has always been (perception or otherwise) a thinking-man's game. There are many strategy games on the market (both TBS and RTS) that play more casual and simplistic. Civ is not, nor should not be one of them.
Indeed. Both pre-patch and post-patch, there are players complaining about the game, but they are not the same players. Those casual players who had been happily playing Civ before the patch and staying off the forums are now logging on to complain about how the patch broke all their strategies and made the game much harder.
The game designers just can't please everyone!
Ahriman
Tyrant
I *think* that CS only keep cities they capture if doing so does not push them into negative happiness.
So they only take small cities, unless they have lots of luxuries.
Not sure though.
I agree that this Civ has certainly not lived up to its potential yet, but it is about 2 years too early to claim it is a lost cause. 4 Had a myriad of issues out the gate, and I believe one of the reasons it had an easier time than 5 was that 3 was so bad when it was released, 4 seemed wonderous in comparison. I think this Civ has plenty of time to get its ducks in a row, and become at least on part with 4. It has only been out for a couple months.
Sock Bramson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 96
I'd brag about the fact that I enjoyed the game both pre and post patch, but I've only just broken the 100 hour mark... I had a pretty ridiculous old-game spree going for about a month with the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and the Fallout series (with a little Planescape thrown in the mix), then I found out that my old room mate left an unopened copy of SC2, THEN I got Dead Rising 2 and the new Assassin's Creed with some b-day cash. Fortunately, this patch has finally brought me back into the fold. 
The revamped diplomacy is fantastic, leading to some pretty ridiculous World Wars in the last couple of games I've played. Now all I need is a new RFC and I'll be golden.
The revamped diplomacy is fantastic, leading to some pretty ridiculous World Wars in the last couple of games I've played. Now all I need is a new RFC and I'll be golden.
It's interesting that you're both so concerned with classifying your fellow Civ fans into two simple types, and generalizing who the "complainers" are. (This, again?)
I'd venture to guess we're all a little more complicated than that. What are you hoping to accomplish through such simple attempts to categorize others? "If you complain about the patch, you're just a dumb casual player" seems like a silly insinuation to make, doesn't it?
Where in my post did I claim that all post-patch complainers are dumb casual players? I simply made the observation that some casual players who were satisfied with the pre-patch game are now coming out of the woodwork to complain about how the patch has made the game harder. This observation is amply borne out in this thread, where the OP admitted that he did not bother reading the patch notes because he was content with the pre-patch game (and simply wanted multiplayer fixes). We also have other players complaining that they are not interested in learning or putting in too much effort into Civ, and the patch has spoiled that for them.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
What the heck is that...
Minesweeper is cool indeed, but Civ2 feeling is 100 times better as to rule a true country among others. I don't see the link of the quoted sentences and your pathetic bile... if fact, there is none, and you attempt to distord my saying is rather pathetic.
I said no such thing. I am not content with CiV, either post or pre patch. The patch has just made the game worse by breaking happiness even more than it was. I read all the patch notes as soon as they were released. And fyi I don't even player multiplayer so I don't know where you read that from.
Yes I agree with this. I'm also getting the impression that people who aren't satisfied with the current version of CiV are being labeled as 'casual' gamers who clearly don't enjoy a good strategy game.
This is quite insulting. I am not a casual gamer, I love the civ series, I played CiV for over 80 hours during the last two weeks. Thats basically a full time job here in the UK. I, like many others had very high expectations of CiV, and unfortunately, the game simply doesn't meet the expectation. How can you accuse people who loved Civ IV but don't like CiV as being casual gamers. Civ IV is still a much better, more complexed, deeper game. Some of the garbage presented to us in CiV is shocking. We're back to one leader per civ again, none of them have any individual personality like the Civ IV ones had, health has been taken out, diplomacy is completly broke, no espionage...
And this game is suppossed to be an enhancement of Civ IV???
(post patch and pre patch)
I sincerely hope so!
What the heck is that...
I don't see the link of the quoted sentences and your pathetic bile... if fact, there is none, and you attempt to distord my saying is rather pathetic.
You said you don't like learning and appreciate easy victories. Civilization has historically not been built on the principles that you seem to value.
Apparently with Civ5 they are catering more to your preferences though, which I find unfortunate; I play Civ to have a challenging epic journey to build an empire in a dynamic world with complex interactions between empires. I don't play Civ to...
I play Civ to build, not to destroy. I play to build my empire not destroy others. If the destruction of other empires becomes preferable or mandatory (which is almost always in Civ5) then I don't hesitate to do so, but only to facilitate the building of my own empire.
If you prefer games of destruction then I feel that Civilization was not designed with that playstyle as its guiding philosophy. It just happens that this iteration of the game allows that playstyle to come to the forefront now because the other strategies are not as viable, which I find to be a major disappointment - not an incredible feature.
Ack sorry! I mixed up this thread with another thread. Was referring to another person, not you.
Actually this is a good point. Even though I love Civ IV, I believe that the Deity difficulty level is a bit too hard, because it turns the game more into a luck based game; If you begin near "bad" AI's, restart. If you don't have any luxouries or early commerce sources, restart. You may found your capital on stone, go straight for masonry, then bronze working and chop, chop, chop, and still the AI will often build the Great Wall before you. In my opinion this is luck, not strategy.
On Immortal, it still feels as your playing the same game as the AI, and therefore I believe that it would have been a better choice for the hardest difficulty level.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
However, the most skilled people over here have always said that Civ, Civ2 and Civ3 were more or less 'no brainers' where there is only one strategy viable. The one in Civ3 was to expand, expand, expand, popping out settlers to no end. Civ2 was not that different, and i guess Civ1 was alike. The only game that differs with that is Civ4, so I wouldn't say it's enough to qualify the whole series as "not being built on the principles that I seem to value".
then it's my turn to say you should play other games, like Victoria, total Wars series etc... where there are plenty complex interaction between empires... Civ is designed and has always be a simple game for those who like simple games and cool effects.
That's pretty much the same thing. If I like to destroy that's precisely because it takes time to build... other than that, by destroying empires, I build up my own...
On contrary I believe that war in Civ series has always been an important aspect. After all, what can you build and move if not military units? You've nothing much to do in Civ, and the emphasis has always been put on conquering the others by brute force, when then are peaceful or just took time to build their empires. If you miss this feeling of Civ, I really don't understand what you are playing Civ for.
I started on Civ3, so I cannot discuss the earlier gamestyles. Two games (3 & 4) with expansions + many years has taught me that, at least recently, Civilization is more than just a wargame series.
I disagree. I found Civ to be a complex game before this iteration. There are features in place that could be great in Civ5 if implemented properly, but the pathetic AI and poor implementation of the new features make this game pretty simplistic in terms of strategy.
From what you wrote you gave the impression that you like being a playground bully, picking on weaker opponents (or in this case AI that cannot even handle simple tasks). I take more pleasure in defeating a difficult opponent where my victory isn't 100% assured when I load up the game.
I never said war is not an important feature, in fact if there were no war Civ would be completely unrealistic and Civ5 would be even more boring than it is now. It's a very core element to the game, I am not disputing that.
The difference comes in that war has not been the one true and key element to the game, unlike how it feels in this version. If I want to play a game 100% focused on combat I load up a different game for that purpose. Civilization used to be about building an empire using any number of diplomatic approaches; war being an available option, but only one of several.
So, if you like stomping easy AIs in a predetermined ass-kickery, that's your preference. That's not what Civilization should be about and there are plenty of other games that would give the same feeling that are far more appropriate fro such a venture IMO.
Similar threads
