So how's the state of Civ 5 these days?

Funky said:

That's actually a very good idea which fits well to this kind of combat system. The larger the army, the more supplies it would need. Enemy units could try to impede the supply lines, this would be another way to prevent armies from getting too powerful relative to single units and smaller armies.

We should get together and design Civ 6!

Click to expand...

Please no! What happened to making combat less of the focus ? I like the stance you took on the "Total War" style minimap for combat. The best (maybe the only) argument for not using it I've heard to date.

Supply lines tip the scales towards combat. Add in transport ships and I'd feel like the CEO of UPS (logistics) not an Empire builder. Maybe not even the CEO at that point....a lousy middle manager.

The former Civ 5 guy who is doing a Kickstarter game is going down that path. Join him in designing his game, just not Civ 6 <-----Said jokingly

Drakarska said:

Perhaps you should take a quick peek over in the BTS S & T forums concerning forts. They are eminently useful, have some rather interesting abilities when chained, and some specialized abilities that you may not have thought of.

Click to expand...

I had a look around there and didn't come across anything I didn't already know. They do have their uses of course, but their abilities are so limited that they're rarely worth building. About the only thing I might use one for is to act as a canal somewhere or at some choke point, but those situations don't comes up all that often. All in all they're pretty useless in Civ 4.

cant a moderator stop this nonsense here?

honestly stating the same self contradicting all over, probably even answering himself by seeing sheer number of posts - thats what this forum is about?

a space for some shizophrenic nerd?

If some1 got such a big problem with civ series he might maybe look another place?

Moderator Action: Please see the moderator warnings placed earlier in the thread. Don't attack other users. Either address the points, or leave the thread. If you think the thread breaks the forum rules, report it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I do get the feeling he just wants to talk.

I think Civ 5 with G&K is a very good game. It's not quite better then Civ4 (because Civ4 is a masterpiece), but it is very solid. It is also certainly isn't dumbed down at all. Anyone who says so doesn't know jack about Civ 5

JanghanHong said:

I do get the feeling he just wants to talk.

Click to expand...

Partly, it's been a couple of years since I've spent time on this site. But I'm also trying to see how things have come along with Civ 5. Unfortunately I'm not too impressed with the fans of the game at this point. I guess simply discussing the pros and cons of the game aren't acceptable, all posters here seem to be required to be gushing with enthusiasm for it or they end up getting flamed. Maybe I should just stay in the Civ 4 forums, they seem to be much more civil there.

Can a moderator please remove this thread out of civ5 forum?

Moderator Action: Continuing to spam, despite moderator direction not to.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Willem said:

Partly, it's been a couple of years since I've spent time on this site. But I'm also trying to see how things have come along with Civ 5. Unfortunately I'm not too impressed with the fans of the game at this point. I guess simply discussing the pros and cons of the game aren't acceptable, all posters here seem to be required to be gushing with enthusiasm for it or they end up getting flamed. Maybe I should just stay in the Civ 4 forums, they seem to be much more civil there.

Click to expand...

It's probably for the best.


It's good that at least you know more about CIV5 and its incremental improvements though. Other people in CIV4 forum seems to think that no improvement can be had CIV5 and CIV4 was released with all the expansions from day 1.

If you want to have a go at CIV5 after BNW and compare it with BTS, let the forum know.

I think the collective frustration with your approach to this thread is grounded in what quickly became apparent to all readers - you arrived with preconceived notions about the game without having played it, merely echoing what other CIV enthusiasts have derisively stated about the game, and been (mostly) dismissive of what you've been told. Frankly, if you had arrived here saying "just bought the game, played it for 2 weeks now, and here are some questions and concerns" you would have gotten a better hearing.

The fact is, there are umpteen thousand threads expressing wishes and desires about how the game might be changed (including corporations, limited stacks, airports and all the other CIV stuff) and a growing mod community customizing the game to their own taste (understandably years behind the CIV mod community, but the dll was released and folks are playing with the engine even more).

So, give it a rest. You're not going to hear anything new at this point. Either you're intrigued enough to grab the game on sale and give it a weekend's play or you're not.

Hence since the OP clearly doesn't want to foster a respective discussion, can't we just either lock this thread or merge it with one of the old and dead rant threads?

Browd said:

[...]

So, give it a rest.

Click to expand...

Gucumatz said:

Hence since the OP clearly doesn't want to foster a respective discussion, can't we just either lock this thread or merge it with one of the old and dead rant threads?

Click to expand...

Moderator Action: If you have a problem with the thread, report it. Even better, if you don't like it, feel free not to read it. Neither of these posts add anything of value to the discussion, and would've been better not posted. Please leave the thread if you have nothing to contribute to it.

Same goes for earlier posts by tommynt and Civking5, both of whom have been infracted for their efforts.

whyidie said:

Please no! What happened to making combat less of the focus ? I like the stance you took on the "Total War" style minimap for combat. The best (maybe the only) argument for not using it I've heard to date.

Supply lines tip the scales towards combat. Add in transport ships and I'd feel like the CEO of UPS (logistics) not an Empire builder. Maybe not even the CEO at that point....a lousy middle manager.

The former Civ 5 guy who is doing a Kickstarter game is going down that path. Join him in designing his game, just not Civ 6 <-----Said jokingly

Click to expand...

A valid concern, though I don't think that supply lines would necessarily shift the focus towards combat. Strictly speaking, supply lines aren't about combat, they are a strategic element to manage our troops (or to impede the enemy's troops). While they make warring require more thought, the combat itself, as in the armies clashing into eachother, would actually be less of a focal point than in Civ 4, since instead of numerous single units attacking and having to think about combat chances and attack order, we have fewer entities (armies) and the battles would be auto-resolved over the course of a few turns, depending on army sizes.

In fact, compared to Civ 4 I think that with this system it's the strategical elements which gain more emphasis over the tactical aspects, at least if we define the term "strategical" as including war strategies. And it would still be the empire building aspects of the game which are the main focus of the game, since like in Civ 4 it would mainly depend on these elements, i.e. who has the better economy and demonstrated better strategical planning, who, for example, can create more and better units and gain the better chances to get the upper hand.

So thank you for your offer to join John Shaffer, but I'll rather stick with Civ 6.

In previous versions of the civilization series, I found that most of the civs were more or less interchangeable. They each had their unique unit, and their "ability" (like religious, militaristic, etc.), and CIV added the unique building. These all partially affected how you chose to play the game but I still felt that each of the civs was NOT unique. Those other things factored into how I would play each individual civ, but it did not fundamentally change my play style.

On the other hand, in CiV, the different combination of UUs, UBs, UAs, and UIs has truly made each individual civ unique in a way that the previous games failed to do. Playing the Romans requires a very different play style than Carthage, although each civ still retains the flexibility to win on all the victory conditions.

There are many reasons to play CiV, but I have really found the new change to how the civilizations are assigned different combinations of UUs, Ubs, UAs, and UIs to be its best feature and the reason I still love this game after having played Civ III and CIV.

Thanks BrotherInJah for taking the trouble to upload these screenshots (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12315042&postcount=115). Although I must have clocked 100's of hours in G & K, I've never seen a single diplo modifier to do with religion, and also War Academy articles don't examine it, so your screenshots are very enlightening for me.

I need to take back my statement that religion doesn't have diplomatic implications, it obviously can have (although I'd like more diplo options around religion, it still seems thin to me).

thadiusdean said:

Willem, have you considered watching any "Let's Play" videos of CiV by advanced players? Perhaps they would be indicative of any complexity you feel the game may or may not be lacking. It's also a fun way to preview a game before buying it. Just started watching this one, if you'd like somewhere to start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtTEgO3HE40&list=PLO2TQ35QuC4GOTG_ahWT8hI_b7qD59Gby

Click to expand...

@Willem

I suggest to watch the first videos in the youtube link 'Let's play civ5: the Celts', above.
IMHO, the player's skill is average although the level is Deity.
Further, those videos give you a good indication of what you will be doing when playing civ5.
Also, all civ5 leaders behave like the civ4 Montezuma.

Last advice, don't watch all 15 videos to see a complete game. The gameplay pattern won't change.
Every video is ~40 minutes long; that's 10 hours of your lifetime.

Great vids, but I'm surprised how "muddy" everything looks. Without the tags/icon hell its pretty much impossible to see... anything. Are there any good graphical mods that makes it possible to see the resources and especially units clearly without the icons turned on, and maybe a stupid question, but the frames around the hexes makes it look like a board game rather than a world. Can they be turned off?
Also, it look like a nightmare to move units (click, click, click, click). Is it as bad as it looks or is he intentionally using the mouse everytime coz its a "Lets Play" video?

Also, the AI did some pretty dumb moves (f.ex. making peace right after the player captured one of the greek cities, even though the greek could easily have taken the city back). Has the AI improved since the video was made?

edit : nvm the last part, just saw the release date of the vids which were last week, and I assume they are made recently.

Well it depends when it comes to AI and peace deals. If you snipe a city from them oftentimes they will refuse to make peace with you for a while thinking they can reclaim it. If you have been at war with them for a long time, or the AI calculates that it will just suffer too much losses from the retaking/taking/trench fight he may still make peace even if he could potentially retake the city

vincentz said:

Great vids, but I'm surprised how "muddy" everything looks. Without the tags/icon hell its pretty much impossible to see... anything. Are there any good graphical mods that makes it possible to see the resources and especially units clearly without the icons turned on, and maybe a stupid question, but the frames around the hexes makes it look like a board game rather than a world. Can they be turned off?

Click to expand...

You can turn off grid borders and turn on resource icons to make it easier to see. If you actually played the game, you wouldn't have to ask because that's the first thing you would have noticed.

It's always hard to adapt to new things but certainly everything changes for a better so do the CIV team. I didn't play CV4 very much but still feel Civ5 is a great renovation. It's not easy to come up with a perfect product right at the early stages but until now i'm happy with it. AI has been improved much but still AI, but it's ok then. If you want more challange, you can try Immortal or Deity levels. Religion is back already. What makes Civ5 more favorable than civ4 is STACK UNIT. That you have more units doens't mean you will win. That's REAL STRATEGY GAME. Tech trade is not natural, research agreement is much better. Just like you buy a book but you have to read it. it takes time guy. hope you'll enjoy it.

Funky said:

A valid concern, though I don't think that supply lines would necessarily shift the focus towards combat.

Click to expand...

Fair. The game would not become a war game instantly, but it would add more focus to warfare.

Funky said:

Strictly speaking, supply lines aren't about combat, they are a strategic element to manage our troops (or to impede the enemy's troops).

Click to expand...

Warfare then ?

Funky said:

While they make warring require more thought, the combat itself, as in the armies clashing into eachother, would actually be less of a focal point than in Civ 4, since instead of numerous single units attacking and having to think about combat chances and attack order, we have fewer entities (armies) and the battles would be auto-resolved over the course of a few turns, depending on army sizes. In fact, compared to Civ 4 I think that with this system it's the strategical elements which gain more emphasis over the tactical aspects, at least if we define the term "strategical" as including war strategies

Click to expand...

Let me see if I've got the benefits down. We switch the focus from tactics (armies bashing) to strategy (supplying the armies) ?

Funky said:

. And it would still be the empire building aspects of the game which are the main focus of the game, since like in Civ 4 it would mainly depend on these elements, i.e. who has the better economy and demonstrated better strategical planning, who, for example, can create more and better units and gain the better chances to get the upper hand.

Click to expand...

In 5 economy still comes in to play with unit costs. Resources are also a variable (more pronounced for me, don't know how much it impacts the AI) that somewhat simulates supply. Size of your cities is also a constraint as there is a limit to the number of troops each empire can support. Even social policies and religion have benefits to the military should you want them to. All of these are elements of the game that determine who can create more or better units.


So would the supply line be focused purely on how I deliver resources to the army when they are at combat ? Or is the focus on having to directly control the size of your military ? How much food, coint, etc to devote to the military ?

Funky said:

So thank you for your offer to join John Shaffer, but I'll rather stick with Civ 6.

Click to expand...

ha! So long as I can stick around for 6, the more the merrier.