MonorailCat
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 74
Err, the bug you mentioned is no bug.
Even in G&K you can plant cities under 3 tiles difference, if they are on different Islands/continents like your screenshot shows.
Brave New World reviews
- Thread starter dudikoff
- Start date
Err, the bug you mentioned is no bug.
Even in G&K you can plant cities under 3 tiles difference, if they are on different Islands/continents like your screenshot shows.
Eyeoftiger
Warlord
FWIW, 2KGames gives all of us reviewers full versions of the game to play. It is not a preview or stripped version.
He should play on Immortal+ (and probably Emperor on many maps) if he wants another reason not to go wide. The AI will dogpile you and your crappy 3 pop cities. I say this as someone who still likes to go with Liberty. Theres a fine balance between REXing,happiness and defense. Not to mention slowing your progress to the Liberty finisher and the left side of Rationalism. Then you have a lot of uni's to buy or slowly build.
He has some reasonable arguments that honest people can debate but the ICS thing is not one of them.
He has some reasonable arguments that honest people can debate but the ICS thing is not one of them.
seancolorado
Deity
Eyeoftiger
Warlord
True, but not on the same land mass, which was happening repeatedly.
That's not a bug. There is no restriction to the distance between cities if the cities are on different land masses.
MonorailCat
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 74
oh ok, thats new. Just commented on the screenshot, which looked like different islands.
When a reviewer ends an review of an expansion of a game by saying that the game is still fundamentally broken, why is he reviewing the expansion? Most people wouldn't agree with that view, and anyone who holds it will obviously be dissatisfied with an expansion. The central bucket analogy only makes sense in the most reductive sense and is another fundamental problem for the author that doesn't say much to BNW except that it doesn't completely overhaul all of the game's mechanics.
I don't expect all of the reviews for the game to be as fawning as some of the reviews we've seen thus far, but that is not a very good review, even if we're just talking about all of the specifics to the expansion that he omits in favor of his critiques of Civ V in general.
I don't expect all of the reviews for the game to be as fawning as some of the reviews we've seen thus far, but that is not a very good review, even if we're just talking about all of the specifics to the expansion that he omits in favor of his critiques of Civ V in general.
Eyeoftiger
Warlord
What I was greatly impressed with in my 30 hours in the expansion (logged thousands of hours in vanilla Civ 5 and Gods and Kings) was the way they seamlessly improved the culture with tourism and made it and diplomacy viable options for victory.
I played through 4 games (Venice, Indonesia, France (since they changed them so much), and Poland), and Venice is a challenge for sure. Only having the ability to build one city is fun and forces you to change your strategy. Granted, you can gain puppet cities, but you can't control them (but you can purchase improvements in them oddly enough).
I loved the new trade system but I think it needs tweaking a bit. There really needs to be an option to automatically renew the route. If you're playing with Venice, you can have scores of trade routes at any one time, and it makes the game bog down even more than it already does in the later eras.
Barbarians seem stronger. The AI doesn't seem improved as they still don't know how to defend a naval assault. The AI is MUCH MORE aggressive at expansion though.
Starting locations in my 4 games were all odd, as each time I had 2 other capitals within 6-7 hexes of mine (with an ocean on one side in three of them). I found it curious that for an expansion that focuses so much on culture and diplomacy, putting cities this close to each other on large continents was a recipe for early and continual war. It might have just been a coincidence, but just giving you my experience from what I played.
I don't consider myself an expert at this game by any means, but I have loved the series from the Civ III period to now. I still think there are elements of Civ 4 that are better than 5, but I do like where Civ 5 has been taken.
I played through 4 games (Venice, Indonesia, France (since they changed them so much), and Poland), and Venice is a challenge for sure. Only having the ability to build one city is fun and forces you to change your strategy. Granted, you can gain puppet cities, but you can't control them (but you can purchase improvements in them oddly enough).
I loved the new trade system but I think it needs tweaking a bit. There really needs to be an option to automatically renew the route. If you're playing with Venice, you can have scores of trade routes at any one time, and it makes the game bog down even more than it already does in the later eras.
Barbarians seem stronger. The AI doesn't seem improved as they still don't know how to defend a naval assault. The AI is MUCH MORE aggressive at expansion though.
Starting locations in my 4 games were all odd, as each time I had 2 other capitals within 6-7 hexes of mine (with an ocean on one side in three of them). I found it curious that for an expansion that focuses so much on culture and diplomacy, putting cities this close to each other on large continents was a recipe for early and continual war. It might have just been a coincidence, but just giving you my experience from what I played.
I don't consider myself an expert at this game by any means, but I have loved the series from the Civ III period to now. I still think there are elements of Civ 4 that are better than 5, but I do like where Civ 5 has been taken.
MonorailCat
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 74
Like reviewing a Call of Duty expansion and ending with "it's still a FPS in which you shoot people. 5/10"
This is almost certainly a coincidence but we'll see.
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
@EyeofTiger --
to be very clear, what your screenshot in the review 'claims' to be a 'very annoying bug' is actually not a bug, just you not knowing enough about that mechanic. It's quite obvious that the two cities are on different landmasses.
Without a real screenshot/saved game of what you claim is a bug (post them here and the devs will find it), I'd kindly suggest you edit your review to not mention that at all.
It removes peoples ability to believe your criticisms of the game (which the rest may or may not have real value to them) when it's obvious that you are mistaken about a basic mechanic.
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
I feared exactly this in another thread.
I'd have been glad to be wrong on this one. ... When you say 'scores', you're speaking figuratively, right? Not real multiples of 20? 
adwcta
King
Haha, this venturebeat review is an awesome example of people not knowing what they're doing.
Zulu asks you to declare war on Egypt. You say sure, ten turns, you then amass troops at Egypt's border and promise them you won't attack them. Two turns later, you DO attack them, with the Zulu, and the super honest and honorable Zulu now hate you because you've proven yourself to be a lying sack of s***. This strikes the reviewer as flawed. But wouldn't it be weirder if the honorable Zulu hate you for lying, except when it benefits them? This isn't a flaw of the AI system, it's a shining example of the AI leader flavors functioning brilliantly.
Also, city spam is and was always the best strategy? Religious bonuses are tiny and don't affect the game? And yes, he actually makes these claims for G&K, not just BNW.
AI military being irrational/horrible is a given, but this is just about the only useful part of the review, a confirmation that no large progress has been made to land combat AI.
This review should be caveat-ed beforehand with: I hated Civ V, and G&K, so I didn't play much of it, didn't find it fun, don't understand how the game works, and yet I will gladly share my uninformed and mostly factually inaccurate (not just opinion) description of it online anyway. ::shakes head::
Zulu asks you to declare war on Egypt. You say sure, ten turns, you then amass troops at Egypt's border and promise them you won't attack them. Two turns later, you DO attack them, with the Zulu, and the super honest and honorable Zulu now hate you because you've proven yourself to be a lying sack of s***. This strikes the reviewer as flawed. But wouldn't it be weirder if the honorable Zulu hate you for lying, except when it benefits them? This isn't a flaw of the AI system, it's a shining example of the AI leader flavors functioning brilliantly.
Also, city spam is and was always the best strategy? Religious bonuses are tiny and don't affect the game? And yes, he actually makes these claims for G&K, not just BNW.
AI military being irrational/horrible is a given, but this is just about the only useful part of the review, a confirmation that no large progress has been made to land combat AI.
This review should be caveat-ed beforehand with: I hated Civ V, and G&K, so I didn't play much of it, didn't find it fun, don't understand how the game works, and yet I will gladly share my uninformed and mostly factually inaccurate (not just opinion) description of it online anyway. ::shakes head::
When I first spotted this expansion, I was skeptical about getting it after having bought Civ V and G&K on their day of release, and still not being impressed and having to go back to playing BTS to get my strategy game satisfaction.
But everything that's being said about this expansion sounds amazing, especially because I prefer to play peaceful culture or science games and dislike war, and this expansion is adding loads of extra stuff for peaceful strategies.
But everything that's being said about this expansion sounds amazing, especially because I prefer to play peaceful culture or science games and dislike war, and this expansion is adding loads of extra stuff for peaceful strategies.
Sir Parsifal
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2013
- Messages
- 88
PC Gamer review.
Which seems to show that the Fountain of Youth has been replace by the Source of the Nile? Or maybe Source of the Nile is scenario-specific.
Which seems to show that the Fountain of Youth has been replace by the Source of the Nile? Or maybe Source of the Nile is scenario-specific.
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
it's in the SFA scenario.
Regarding the AI, it looks like they haven't done anything with it other than with the new mechanics. I guess they are happy with the current combat AI which is incredibly disappointing, though not unexpected. If they ever make a real improvement to the combat AI ( if that's even possible ) They will advertise this fact. They didn't mention it for BNW and that's why no combat AI improvements are coming.
"Comparing diplomats to pope hats, Brave New World isnt quite as much of a step forward as the Gods and Kings expansion. But the later eras are an entirely new affair, solving some of the games largest problems in novel and enjoyable ways. Brave New Worlds additions to the already-excellent Civ V have resulted in the high point of the franchise, and one of historys greatest turn-based strategy experiences."
PC Gamer says GK is a better expansion. All hope is lost.
Gamespot's is up, gave it a 9.5/10.
http://www.gamespot.com/sid-meiers-...ivilization-v-brave-new-world-review-6411136/
http://www.gamespot.com/sid-meiers-...ivilization-v-brave-new-world-review-6411136/
