Game worse since BNW ?

The AI doesn't seem to interact with the city states all that well.

Greece in my latest game is obsessed with Hanoi.

Hanoi is nowhere near their lands, it seems strangely arbitrary, but they go crazy if I become their ally. The AI doesn't seem to react by trying to go after different city states.

Each civ seems to have one city state that they are bent out of shape about.

In any event, they can act like buffers between civilizations sometimes which discourages expansion and aggression.

I'm wondering if changes to the starting conditions (no city states, no cultural victory, etc.) can replicate the feel of previous iterations.
 
Dogmouth said:
In BNW, there is no historical Rome, Alexander, Persia, ancient China, etc. Sprawling classical empires have been seriously nerfed.
Click to expand...

Maybe not with those specific civs but in plenty of my games I still have a runaway Wide civ... Russia, Germany, and Brazil often. Heck, in my current game Brazil is once again going massive and settling every tiny scrap of dirt they can find.

Of course I also don't see a lot of the uber peace some people have been getting and there's been some freakin' big conquered nations.
 
eldiablonoche said:
Maybe not with those specific civs but in plenty of my games I still have a runaway Wide civ... Russia, Germany, and Brazil often. Heck, in my current game Brazil is once again going massive and settling every tiny scrap of dirt they can find.

Of course I also don't see a lot of the uber peace some people have been getting and there's been some freakin' big conquered nations.
Click to expand...
In which difficulty do you play?
 
I play king. I go tall. I don't warmonger, I fight only for my survival and for a couple spots of choice land. I colonize, and take land on other continents. Somehow though I can't get much fun out of BNW. G+K felt organic, like everything there was something that should have been there from the begining. BNW just seemed to tack on a bunch of passive aggressive BS for the sake of annoyance and complexity. It didn't feel like they playtested it properly, balanced it right, or even checked to make sure the changes were nesaccary! It's only now that I have to deal with the AI on a much more personal level that it reveals its true hideousness. I'm thinking about going back to gods and kings and staying there. Still, I'll miss shaka, Maria, and Casamir a lot... To hell with Gimmicky tourism though!
 
I was going to get BNW this weekend? Can anyone please explain why conquering the world is not an option in BNW or large empires?. I can manage this fine in G&K.

If pushed to sitting around with 4 cities..its not the game for me and i should save £20.00.. id really appreciate knowing if thats the case

Thanks
 
paulcarri said:
I was going to get BNW this weekend? Can anyone please explain why conquering the world is not an option in BNW or large empires?. I can manage this fine in G&K.
Click to expand...

I think people who say that are used to G&K play styles and haven't adapted their play for new mechanics and adjustments in how things work. e.g., with changes in commerce (you no longer get commerce from river tiles, basically you need caravans) you can't just be happy with a river start. Regardless of start, you have to do something to ensure you have gold to pay the troops. So, if you stay in G&K mode, and don't do those things, obviously you'll have trouble conquering.

That's just my read on it. After getting used to the changes, I'm not having any trouble conquering or having large empires. Anyway I think it's just the disconnect between wanting changes (expansion) but not really being willing to change play style to use the changes well.
 
Wodan said:
I think people who say that are used to G&K play styles and haven't adapted their play for new mechanics and adjustments in how things work. e.g., with changes in commerce (you no longer get commerce from river tiles, basically you need caravans) you can't just be happy with a river start. Regardless of start, you have to do something to ensure you have gold to pay the troops. So, if you stay in G&K mode, and don't do those things, obviously you'll have trouble conquering.

That's just my read on it. After getting used to the changes, I'm not having any trouble conquering or having large empires. Anyway I think it's just the disconnect between wanting changes (expansion) but not really being willing to change play style to use the changes well.
Click to expand...

Hmm most my gold comes in G&K from sticking trade posts everywhere, internal trade (harbours!)- and sea resources as i play watery maps.

Anyway cheers, appreciate the feedback.
 
Funny thing about BNW is that you don`t really enjoy it at all until you get really LATE into the game. I play on really long games (Epic, I think it is) and you don`t see much happen at all for about 3\4 of Civ until around the Modern era really when diplomacy and all that starts to happen and you speak more to AI leaders.

I had one case where Morroco denounced me for making a political suggestion, but then later came back almost apologising and asking if we could see beyond political differences which I thought was nice. It`s just a pity that BNW does not do much for the Early part of the gamel.
 
Maybe the problem with my feelings about BNW is that Sid implemented many new mechanics, whoch may actually work, but they are engaging, obligatory and, most important, they are just not needed to make my feeling of the game better.

Princeofnigeria said:
I play king. I go tall. I don't warmonger, I fight only for my survival and for a couple spots of choice land. I colonize, and take land on other continents. Somehow though I can't get much fun out of BNW. G+K felt organic, like everything there was something that should have been there from the begining. BNW just seemed to tack on a bunch of passive aggressive BS for the sake of annoyance and complexity. It didn't feel like they playtested it properly, balanced it right, or even checked to make sure the changes were nesaccary! It's only now that I have to deal with the AI on a much more personal level that it reveals its true hideousness. I'm thinking about going back to gods and kings and staying there. Still, I'll miss shaka, Maria, and Casamir a lot... To hell with Gimmicky tourism though!
Click to expand...

Yeah, i miss new Civs too, they are fine.


Socratatus said:
Funny thing about BNW is that you don`t really enjoy it at all until you get really LATE into the game. I play on really long games (Epic, I think it is) and you don`t see much happen at all for about 3\4 of Civ until around the Modern era really when diplomacy and all that starts to happen and you speak more to AI leaders.

I had one case where Morroco denounced me for making a political suggestion, but then later came back almost apologising and asking if we could see beyond political differences which I thought was nice. It`s just a pity that BNW does not do much for the Early part of the gamel.
Click to expand...

This. AI is not smart enough to make all game about diplomacy, which could be a fine solution in multi. When i played ultimately peaceful game going toward science victory i actually got bored to death.

paulcarri said:
I was going to get BNW this weekend? Can anyone please explain why conquering the world is not an option in BNW or large empires?. I can manage this fine in G&K.

If pushed to sitting around with 4 cities..its not the game for me and i should save £20.00.. id really appreciate knowing if thats the case

Thanks
Click to expand...

Just cause the war is not efficient anymore till medieval or so. Im not saying its impossible, its not efficient, you cant make good use of this cities, your economy is broken, and you primary cities arent growing. If i would play with humans i woudnt even consider it, turling is far better and needed cause early empires have much more problems now. Defence in early stages of the game is so easy that the early warfare nerf is huge cons for me.
 
Better with BNW, but we the possibility for early warfare to really pay off more, possibly by increasing the cost of Classical and Medieval techs, and perhaps a happiness boost in Honor.
 
Vohbo said:
Better with BNW, but we the possibility for early warfare to really pay off more, possibly by increasing the cost of Classical and Medieval techs, and perhaps a happiness boost in Honor.
Click to expand...

The happiness boost to Honour would make it a much more palatable social policy tree - especially in the early part of the game.

Good call.
 
paulcarri said:
Hmm most my gold comes in G&K from sticking trade posts everywhere, internal trade (harbours!)- and sea resources as i play watery maps.

Anyway cheers, appreciate the feedback.
Click to expand...

I often put farms everywhere, mines everywhere else, and TPs only in the jungle. anyway yes cheers! :cheers:
 
paulcarri said:
I was going to get BNW this weekend? Can anyone please explain why conquering the world is not an option in BNW or large empires?. I can manage this fine in G&K.

If pushed to sitting around with 4 cities..its not the game for me and i should save £20.00.. id really appreciate knowing if thats the case

Thanks
Click to expand...

Those people are just plain wrong. What they haven't realized is that BNW has increased the skill required to support a military. Doing so is still possible. Having a large civilization is still possible and advantageous. People are just looking at the small set backs that have been set in place and blowing them out of proportion. It's the same game slightly tweaked. That's all.

BNW is far better. I will admit that my first few days or so I didn't like it at all but once I got used to it, I feel G&K is an inferior version for sure. The game play is now more in depth. The only thing I don't like is the world congress. Being able to decimate a superior player with voting is absurd IMO.
 
I hate to say it, but I've put the game down with little intent of picking it back up. I checked these forums religiously in the months prior to BNW's release, stopped playing G&K so I wouldn't tire myself out on Civ, and was generally extremely hyped to play. I've played 20 or so games since BNW came out, and I find myself massively let down by the current state of the game.

I can look at each addition to the game individually and recognize that each one deserves to be in the game, but on the whole, Civ V just isn't fun anymore. I don't think it's simply a case of having grown tired of Civ, either; I find myself wanting to play, but when I start a game, I only end up focusing on the negatives and the tedium. It's certainly not a case of the game failing to live up to its predecessor, either, as I found IV catastrophically boring. Somehow, I find BNW much less than the sum of its parts, and it's left me very disappointed.
 
Kizo said:
I hate to say it, but I've put the game down with little intent of picking it back up. I checked these forums religiously in the months prior to BNW's release, stopped playing G&K so I wouldn't tire myself out on Civ, and was generally extremely hyped to play. I've played 20 or so games since BNW came out, and I find myself massively let down by the current state of the game.

I can look at each addition to the game individually and recognize that each one deserves to be in the game, but on the whole, Civ V just isn't fun anymore. I don't think it's simply a case of having grown tired of Civ, either; I find myself wanting to play, but when I start a game, I only end up focusing on the negatives and the tedium. It's certainly not a case of the game failing to live up to its predecessor, either, as I found IV catastrophically boring. Somehow, I find BNW much less than the sum of its parts, and it's left me very disappointed.
Click to expand...

The opposite happened to me. Civ 5 had never captured my attention in a way that would keep me into it for very long until BNW. All the additions and changes have done nothing but improve the game and make it so much deeper.

I'm curious, though -- what are the negatives that have you down? I admit, I sometimes feel defeated, but it's never by the game design, it's always by my own failings, although as I've gotten better at the game and explored new strategies, that's improved significantly.
 
Maybe if they reduced the science penalty from founding new cities, so wide empires aren't as nerfed. But I agree with everyone else here, BNW did make the game much better.
 
I'm hoping that I have the same two stages of experience with BNW that I had with G&K:

(1) initially underwhelmed/worried while loving the underlying concepts and additional civilizations/leaders/personalities; then,
(2) quite happy/relieved with the hotixed/patched/modded updates that came over the following year.

BNW is a solid foundation. I hope that it's improved considerably in the coming year or two. If so, I could see myself enjoying this game for years.
 
I really was hoping for a drastic change to the diplomacy system, since I always felt bribing all the city-states for a diplomatic win felt rather lackluster. While the world congress is an interesting addition, you still end up bribing all the city-states for enough votes to win. The AI is still too oblivious/moody/incompetent to feel like you are building meaningful coalitions with them. I hope my opinion of this changes, or that the AI gets a hot fix. It's like they are all playing a different game than I am. Seriously, why do they all want funding for the arts?
 
Socratatus said:
Funny thing about BNW is that you don`t really enjoy it at all until you get really LATE into the game. I play on really long games (Epic, I think it is) and you don`t see much happen at all for about 3\4 of Civ until around the Modern era really when diplomacy and all that starts to happen and you speak more to AI leaders.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this is a perfect description of where the game is at currently. FWIW, I play normal speed and see exactly the same trends.

CraigMak said:
Those people are just plain wrong. What they haven't realized is that BNW has increased the skill required to support a military. Doing so is still possible. Having a large civilization is still possible and advantageous. People are just looking at the small set backs that have been set in place and blowing them out of proportion.
Click to expand...

Supporting your military isn't remotely the issue if you want to go wide, whether by settling cities yourself or conquering them. The issue is usually gaining sufficient happiness to support a wide empire. Check any of the youtube videos out there, links to which can be found on this forum, if you want to see evidence of just how much of a constraint happiness is.

All that said, I'd agree that BNW is an improvement over G&K. IMHO, the game's pacing just needs to change, so that the gamer can do a little more earlier....even if that comes at the cost of slowing down the rate of gains seen in the mid-late game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Few questions about vox populi and more
Replies
1
Views
323
Yerltvachovicic
Yerltvachovicic
N
Issues with my UI
Replies
0
Views
216
neilkaz
N
mastrude
[BNW] Another late game question:
Replies
1
Views
272
martindo
M
M
Map markers/pins (Civ5 BNW)
Replies
1
Views
501
aafritz17
aafritz17
mastrude
I'd like to play Civ V...
Replies
0
Views
355
mastrude
mastrude
Top Bottom