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

You can purchase any tile with gold that is both currently in no man's land and in a 3 tile radius of your city. The cost of a tile varies depending on how far out it is and what's on it. Part of America's UA allows them to buy tiles at half the cost.

Thank you, now that actually tells me something about the game. Do you need to purchase every tile you want around your city, or are some given to you? And does your cultural boundary expand as soon as you purchase the tile or do you still have to wait for that to happen?
 
Please go away from civ5 forum, you are wasting every bodies time. Go back to civ4 and play it for another 3 years before civ6 comes.

Hmm back on the forums for just a few days and I'm already putting someone on my ignore list. Bad omen.

BTW. Please take look at my standing on this site. I have every right to be here, I've been around a hell of lot longer than you have.
 
This is non sence. What educational history r u talking about? May be you r looking for educational history lessons when Aztec destroys USA 200 BC
If you had followed my arguments, you would have seen that I have been refering to historical plausibility, not to a depiction of reality. Spreading troops across thousands of miles is completely implausible and senseless.
Prior Civ games have certainly been educational by featuring realistic economical systems, changes of governments, a senseful tech tree, and increasingly accurate military and diplomatic systems. Civ 5 didn't only throw these things overboard, but also included further implausible features, like global happiness and city states.
Wether the game is fun or not is an entirely different matter and is based on individual taste. But concerning historical plausibility and being educational, Civ 5 is far below any of its predecessors, and in many ways more harmful than helpful.


Arachnofiend said:
Stacks remove much of the tactical thought involved in warfare, it's odd seeing you defend them while you complain that Civ V is much simpler than IV.
In my opinon stacked combat requires way more thought than 1UPT. But I realize that this is a delicate issue so let's just say it's a subjective matter.


Civking5 said:
Please go away from civ5 forum
Why do you keep pouring oil on the fire and display this hostility? Is it so hard to refrain from attacking other members who don't share your opinon?
 
I don't even know why I waste my time over this thread.

This is non sence.

Please go away from civ5 forum, you are wasting every bodies time. Go back to civ4 and play it for another 3 years before civ6 comes.

Moderator Action: With the exception of your contributions, this thread has managed to remain largely civil and as productive as the topic allows. Please be more civil.

@others - please don't engage with trolling (including saying you're putting someone on your ignore list, which may only exacerbate the situation), but rather report problematic posts.
 
Thank you, now that actually tells me something about the game. Do you need to purchase every tile you want around your city, or are some given to you? And does your cultural boundary expand as soon as you purchase the tile or do you still have to wait for that to happen?

Your borders do naturally expand to the best tiles first (well, 'best' is a little debatable, but the formula in general prioritises better tiles), but if you want another tile for a particular reason, you can buy it. So you aren't constrained to just adapting to whatever tile is thrown up at you next; you can determine the expansion yourself if the natural spread isn't suiting your plan.
 
Your borders do naturally expand to the best tiles first (well, 'best' is a little debatable, but the formula in general prioritises better tiles), but if you want another tile for a particular reason, you can buy it. So you aren't constrained to just adapting to whatever tile is thrown up at you next; you can determine the expansion yourself if the natural spread isn't suiting your plan.

I see. Well that's not as bad as just having to deal with whatever the game decides to give you. Still, if that tile you buy is supposed to be in "No Man's Land", who exactly are you supposed to be giving your money to, since no one actually lives there? That doesn't really make any sense to me.
 
Don't think about it as buying the tile from a specific land owner, but as the investment necessary to stake a legitimate claim over the tile.
 
Don't think about it as buying the tile from a specific land owner, but as the investment necessary to stake a legitimate claim over the tile.

Well it's still a bit of a stretch, but at least there's some control in place. That's more than I figured there was at least. How long after you "buy" the tile does it take for the cultural boundary to expand there, or is that depend on the amount of culture the city is producing? And could a rival civ beat you to that tile even though you've invested in it?
 
You get the tile automatically when you purchase it. You can also see where your borders are going to naturally expand to (i.e. through culture), so you can plan.
 
Religion isn't meaningless diplomatically in Civ5, it's just that you're not automatically hated for following a different religion. If another civ follows a different religion and you spread your to them, they won't be happy. But if they don't have any religion, you'll get a positive modifier for spreading, because they'll get to share in the Follower Beliefs.
I've never seen any of these modifiers come up, not even when it was spread to their capital. Did you actually see these modifiers, or are they hidden? I've seen modifiers for becoming friendly with CS's, building wonders and all sorts of things, but I've yet to see them for religious spread.

About border expansion; I'm not following how a more organic type of border expansion would affect decision making.
It's probably good to say that the speed of tile acquisition still depends on culture, and with good culture the tiles can come in fast, like a tile every 4 or 5 turns or so. The potential workable radius of your town is 3 tiles away from your centre, so normally you won't have every good tile in straight away. When placing towns this already leads to decisions to be made, like do I place my town closer to that specific resource, losing some other benefits, or do I gamble on being able to bring it in with culture quick enough? Buying tiles isn't always attractive, they get more expensive when they're further away as well.
Some other ways to bring tiles in is buy culture bombing an area or to place a citadel. That means sacrificing a great person to bring in a bunch of tiles at once. They can even be tiles that belong to other civs or CS's (just buying from others isn't possible). There will be diplomatic consequences to stealing tiles.

I don't believe they're much criticism for this new border expansion system, altough players will never stop complaining about which tiles will get auto-selected (like when a plains tile with nothing on it gets selected over a deer-forest tile, when both tiles are just as near to the capital). Although tiles that can get selected are earmarked before the actual acquisition happens, visible to the player.

You would need to play with this border expansion system first, Willem. I can understand most of your reservations about Civ 5, but regarding this aspect your criticism is probably premature.
 
You would need to play with this border expansion system first, Willem. I can understand most of your reservations about Civ 5, but regarding this aspect your criticism is probably premature.

Yes, it seems like it. I was operating under the assumption that there was no real control over it, but I see now that there is at least some. It's not exactly logical to me, but it doesn't really tax my desire for a certain amount of realism either. Archers shooting arrows for 400 miles though... :rolleyes:
 
Archers shooting arrows for 400 miles though... :rolleyes:
Maybe you have to imagine you're on a seperate combat screen, and not on the overland map anymore. When you forget about the land map dimensions, it does make sense that archers can fire from a place where there not directly vulnerable to melee counter attack.
The designers will not easily go for seperate combat screens, they see it as an empire building game, so they want to restrict the focus on combat.
 
I could be wrong but ... if you loved 2 you'll love 4. If you, on the other hand, preferred 3 you'll probably love 5.

I didn't care much for Civ 4... (loved 3) but I'm really enjoying 5... except for Steam.

It's much better now... a lot of the complaints were about stability and graphic problems.. those have been worked out.

As for complexity... I think it's more complex than Civ 4 was, especially in the combat dept.

You actually need to think about strategic resources for a change, locating 2 sources of Iron ... is not going to give you much of an army... then you need to think of which city to use these resources in...


Civ IV was easy in that respect - find resources, make tons of stacks - win.

You can't do that anymore you actually need to think wisely about how to use your tiles and resources.
 
Maybe you have to imagine you're on a seperate combat screen, and not on the overland map anymore. When you forget about the land map dimensions, it does make sense that archers can fire from a place where there not directly vulnerable to melee counter attack.
The designers will not easily go for seperate combat screens, they see it as an empire building game, so they want to restrict the focus on combat.

Well certainly it makes sense that Archers can fire at range, but IMO Civ 5 uses a poor implementation of that concept. And I don't see why having an empire building game excludes the possibility of a tactical screen, that would simply be an interface decision which wouldn't really affect the overall game. Having a combination of stack and 1UPT troop placement makes sense really, you could have stack movement on the world map, which would greatly streamline that process, while still having the tactical options of 1UPT for combat. The best of both worlds IMO.
 
Having a combination of stack and 1UPT troop placement makes sense really, you could have stack movement on the world map, which would greatly streamline that process, while still having the tactical options of 1UPT for combat. The best of both worlds IMO.

In my opinon this wouldn't fit well in a Civ game, as it would emphasize the tactical element of the game too much. In some games there are hundreds of battles, and an extra tactical map being opened for every one doesn't sound very appealing to me. There's a reason the Total War games are called Total War, whereas Civilization is called Civilization. The focus should lie on building an empire, not on combat.

While I believe that unit stacking aka Civ 4 is already a very good way to handle combat, I think an even better solution would be to either arrange armies like in Civ 3 (though the AI would have to be able to handle it, which it wasn't in Civ 3), or a system like in the Call to Power games (though the AI sucked there as well).
 
The focus should lie on building an empire, not on combat.

Personally I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Combat has always been a big part of the Civ games, and a reason why a lot of players like the series. In fact, having a combination of the two would be beneficial for the builder types since you could have a quick combat option that would bypass the whole tactical manoeuvring that the 1UPT system requires. You or the AI would simply march your stack onto a tile with an enemy on it, and the computer would calculate the odds and determine who won and lost. While those players who wanted to duke it out themselves would be taken to the tactical screen.
 
Funky's concern about tactical combat throwing the Civilization experience out of balance is the same concern that made Civ2 designers discard that idea. This is from Brian Reynolds' Civ2 Designers' Notes:

"A proposal for a full-screen tactical combat system which would be used to fight out most battles in detail was dropped, for instance, because we felt it would detract from one of the game’s great strengths, which is the ebb and flow of forces on the main strategic map. Instead, we looked for a way to make strategic combat more interesting and realistic. What we arrived at is the new “strength bar” system, which provides the added realism of “combat damage” but is simple enough not to fundamentally change the balance of the game."

To be fair, the combat system has been simplified in some respects since Civ2. In Civ3, hitpoints were greatly reduced and Firepower was removed entirely; the stacking penalty disappeared. In Civ4, hitpoints were merged with unit strength, which, in turn, no longer distinguished between offensive and defensive strengths. By contrast, Civ4's promotion system and unit-type-dependent modifiers made things a lot more complex than they used to be. Designing combat in a way that avoids both doom stacks and unit congestion seems like a challenge, but personally I share the reservations about a separate tactical combat system.

One thing that still impresses me about Civ2 is the designers' caution about the new combat system they came up with. They went as far as including an optional rule ("simplified combat") that removed hitpoints and firepower and allowed players to stick to the old Civ1 system. I doubt many people made use of it, but it shows that they were not sure that the new way would be well received by everyone. I'm not sure whether an optional rule allowing stacking would have been feasible in Civ5, but I like the respect the Civ2 designers showed towards the gem they were allowed to fiddle with. (Then again, whether I like the end result or not, there's also something to be said for the amount of guts the Civ5 approach must have taken.)
 
Personally I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Combat has always been a big part of the Civ games, and a reason why a lot of players like the series. In fact, having a combination of the two would be beneficial for the builder types since you could have a quick combat option that would bypass the whole tactical manoeuvring that the 1UPT system requires. You or the AI would simply march your stack onto a tile with an enemy on it, and the computer would calculate the odds and determine who won and lost. While those players who wanted to duke it out themselves would be taken to the tactical screen.
And then what? Battle will end when all enemy unit are gone. Or it will stand for few turns and when both side standing there will be draw? After that what will happend on biger map. Do unit gain ground, retreat?


With SOD you have to pump up units whole the time. Biggest and good diversity stack wins, no tactics at all. With 1upt you can have small army but well prepered and placed. You can play on time until more unit will come to the rescue.
 
Top Bottom