Civ V no longer a 4x or am I missing something?

[Ordate]

Honestly when I play a civ game(any) my most enjoyable game play experience is building a massive empire with cities that have tons of improvements etc etc. I don't go for the most effective city builds specializing cities except for a select few and don't try and beat the game on the higher settings. I play at lower levels and smash out the other civs close to me freeing up the land space to build my massive empire. I normally play on the biggest maps with the most amount of turns. (prince, huge, marathon is my normal selection for civ v)

I got the expansion and I have not been able to even think about this. My "empire" chokes fast. If I go even close to my old build styles then I am hemorrhaging money so quickly that I can't even think to keep on top with barbarian camps much less buy food from marintine CS. If I don't go my old build style my lack of happy people will then drown me.

I just don't see how I can do the 4th X. Expansion. If I can even form a trade route it is normally for like 4 gold a turn. 4 gold? And I start with 1 that doesn't improve at all with the number of cities? How do I make this work????? I might be able to make a bunch of undefended cities with no improvements... oh wait, can't even do that as Ill tank on happiness. To say I'm annoyed after playing civs back to the day when you had the option to select ega or vga... Would love to know how to keep playing the current iteration of civ with my preferred play style that has been around... since the dawn of time.

 

[True_Candyman]

Well the first thought that occurred to me is "don't go near your old build styles then"

You've just got to experiment and adapt. There is no problem with them game in this regard. I play the vast majority of my games wide and i've had no trouble It just takes some getting used to.

 

[kingofsealand]

I love to play the same way the OP does with only slightly diff settings, standard map epic pace prince level. Your strategy sounds like it might have worked before but the new expansion makes this Civ V1/2 so try something new. You arent going to be making tons of gold in the early game so no you cant buy many early units youll need to build them. Just wait until you get cargo ships and then the dough really starts rolling in. Also if the early food is a problem for you dont buy it from CS's, use your caravans to run food trade routes.

 

[Volapyk]

So because you got used to the way too easy to get hapiness of GnK, and that has since then been changed, the game is now unplayable with your old strategy?

I don't know how wide you really want to build your empire, but it is possible to build a really wide empire, it is just much harder to get the hapiness and gold to do so.

 

[Dishonor]

Yes Civ5 is not 4x game. Explore and exploit (it can has also other meaning - exploiting stupid AI) are fine. But there is almost no point in expanding or exterminating. We can say, that it is not intended in civ5, because player is actually penalized for that. Just build you three cities. Build your museums, circuses, zoos and hotels. Send archaeological expeditions and make art exhibitions. Then you will get picture, where is written that you won the game.

It feels more like sims or facebook game than 4x game.

Edit: Expanding or exterminating should be countered by other players. It shouldn't be prohibited by stupid game mechanics. Civ 5 is missing wars for land.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

You can expand quite wide, there are even tenets that help you. You just cannot go wide as fast. 4 gold for an early route sounds great to me. My 1st routes are 2-3 Per turn.

How to make it work is easy, expand as you can afford it.

 

[SamBC]

You certainly can exterminate, it just makes everyone else very unhappy with you. Seems kinda natural to me.

It's possible to run your economy without foreign trade - it's just harder.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The game requires you to build a foundation for expansion. But there are still plenty of benefits for expanding if you do it right. I don't think that means its not a 4x, it just means that you can't do it mindlessly.

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

Honestly when I play a civ game(any) my most enjoyable game play experience is building a massive empire with cities that have tons of improvements etc etc. I don't go for the most effective city builds specializing cities except for a select few and don't try and beat the game on the higher settings. I play at lower levels and smash out the other civs close to me freeing up the land space to build my massive empire. I normally play on the biggest maps with the most amount of turns. (prince, huge, marathon is my normal selection for civ v)

I got the expansion and I have not been able to even think about this. My "empire" chokes fast. If I go even close to my old build styles then I am hemorrhaging money so quickly that I can't even think to keep on top with barbarian camps much less buy food from marintine CS. If I don't go my old build style my lack of happy people will then drown me.

I just don't see how I can do the 4th X. Expansion. If I can even form a trade route it is normally for like 4 gold a turn. 4 gold? And I start with 1 that doesn't improve at all with the number of cities? How do I make this work????? I might be able to make a bunch of undefended cities with no improvements... oh wait, can't even do that as Ill tank on happiness. To say I'm annoyed after playing civs back to the day when you had the option to select ega or vga... Would love to know how to keep playing the current iteration of civ with my preferred play style that has been around... since the dawn of time.

You are taking a very literal interpretation of 4X, and only focusing on 1 aspect. Expand does not just mean in terms of cities.

That said there is nothing preventing you from going wide, it is just less efficient then it was. That is a good thing, not a bad one.

I do think you are confusing 4X with your interpretation of 4X.

My suggestion for going wide.
1. Embrace all happiness sources, ie Luxuries, Wonders, Religion, Buildings, Policies, Ideologies etc.
2. You need trade routes, economic buildings and good diplomatic relationships with trade partners. Also connect your cities.
3. Go wide but don't go nuts, expand in line with your happiness bucket, science output, cultural output and gold output.
et al.

I think you really need to look at how you are pursuing your playstyle, as it seems you are not considering all the consequences and opportunities the game has to offer.

I am sure others can provide you with more specific solutions, but either way I hope this helps a little.

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

Yes Civ5 is not 4x game. Explore and exploit (it can has also other meaning - exploiting stupid AI) are fine. But there is almost no point in expanding or exterminating. We can say, that it is not intended in civ5, because player is actually penalized for that. Just build you three cities. Build your museums, circuses, zoos and hotels. Send archaeological expeditions and make art exhibitions. Then you will get picture, where is written that you won the game.

It feels more like sims or facebook game than 4x game.

Edit: Expanding or exterminating should be countered by other players. It shouldn't be prohibited by stupid game mechanics. Civ 5 is missing wars for land.

That is a very narrow minded interpretation. Civ V is 4X, perhaps its not your ideal version of 4X but it is 4X nonetheless.

No expanding and exterminating should not solely be countered by other players, otherwise it would turn Civ V into solely a war-game. You are meant to be controlling a civilization. Civilizations are not only curtailed by other civilizations, they are also curtailed by environment, supply and demand, citizen temperament etc etc. Civ tries to model all of that through in game mechanics, why exactly is that a bad thing ?

Sounds like you just want to expand without bound, and slaughter all who oppose you. If so then download a MOD, create one yourself or used an advanced start with an advanced setup to accomplish your desired game.

BTW What 4X game out there does not try to curtail expansion through in game mechanics ? Every Civ title has done so, so did alpha centauri, IIRC so did the MOO series. These are the most lauded 4X series' of all time, they cant all be wrong.

 

[Dishonor]

BTW What 4X game out there does not try to curtail expansion through in game mechanics ? Every Civ title has done so, so did alpha centauri, IIRC so did the MOO series.

There is no such mechanics in Civ2, alpha centauri, or MOO1/2. How are you penalized for building more cities in Civ2 or AC? Only thing is actual cost of the settler, there is no such thing as Civ5 global happiness mechanics. How MOO penalizes you for settling more planets?

 

[oddtail]

If Civ V is not a 4X game (and I think it's just arguing semantics to an extent), then I'm very happy it isn't. I liked Civ 1 or Civ 2 and played them a LOT back in the day, but honestly? Both these games were easily won just by building as many cities as possible. They were also less games concerned with a more or less convoluted, complex strategy, and more exercises in exploiting certain mechanisms as much as possible (best example of that is how in Civ 1 it's actually beneficial to ignore most technologies. Phalanx armies riding railroads is a viable strategy). It's reasonable to work around game mechanics and try to get the best of them, but when it's easier to step out of the intended boundaries of the game than try to work within them, I consider it bad design. Unless one argues that the phalanx+railroad strategy was the initial intent of the programmers

I like that Civ games have progressively introduced more complex mechanics that made for more problems and more meaningful decisions. I also felt that Civ 4 limited, say, the number of cities in a much more annoying and arbitrary way than Civ 5 does. So I actually don't see much of a problem expanding in Civ 5 to the extent that I want - it just might make the game difficult if I go too far. In Civ 4, expanding beyond a certain point at any given stage of the game was impossible due to hitting a money-based "brick wall". I didn't really like it.

For those who have a problem with Civ 5 gameplay being too restrictive, I'd recommend Civ 1 or 2. Those games were great (even if I do consider them outdated), and they should suit your needs.

 

[Mesix]

The older games still run on modern computers. Why make a new game if it is just going to be the same as the old one?

 

[Mesix]

...and when will Firaxis make a proper sequel to Railroad Tycoon?

 

[Louis XXIV]

There is no such mechanics in Civ2, alpha centauri, or MOO1/2. How are you penalized for building more cities in Civ2 or AC? Only thing is actual cost of the settler, there is no such thing as Civ5 global happiness mechanics. How MOO penalizes you for settling more planets?

Corruption and waste were the main factors considered in those games to limit expansion. Granted, Civ2's waste wasn't as bad as Civ3's, but it was still designed to create diminishing returns for expansion. There has always been an internal check on expansion, but it's been a struggle to determine exactly what that check would be. Civ1 - less return for gold; Civ2 - less return for gold and production (given that units cost production from the city, that could actually be a real penalty for units); Civ3 - a lot less return for gold and production; Civ4 - cities literally cost you gold, so it was possible to lose money building a city; Civ5 - global happiness and road cost are the main factors.

 

[Dishonor]

For those who have a problem with Civ 5 gameplay being too restrictive, I'd recommend Civ 1 or 2. Those games were great (even if I do consider them outdated), and they should suit your needs.

I play Civ 2 sometimes, I would love it to have hexes and 1upt.

Corruption and waste were the main factors considered in those games to limit expansion. Granted, Civ2's waste wasn't as bad as Civ3's, but it was still designed to create diminishing returns for expansion. There has always been an internal check on expansion, but it's been a struggle to determine exactly what that check would be. Civ1 - less return for gold; Civ2 - less return for gold and production (given that units cost production from the city, that could actually be a real penalty for units); Civ3 - a lot less return for gold and production; Civ4 - cities literally cost you gold, so it was possible to lose money building a city; Civ5 - global happiness and road cost are the main factors.

Civ 1,2,3 is just missed opportunity it is nowhere near Civ5, which has missed opportunity too plus global happiness.

 

[The QC]

Civ 1,2,3 is just missed opportunity it is nowhere near Civ5, which has missed opportunity too plus global happiness.

Still, that's not the same as non-existent, which was your initial claim.

The too low penalty in all of the games prior to Civ V made ICS the top strategy, which I always disliked and tried to pretend didn't exist.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Civ is definitely a 4 x ... don't try to play it as a 1 x (expand) or a 2x (expand+exterminate) or even a 3x (explore+expand+exterminate)

You need to take the time to properly exploit the terrain before you claim it.

This means you must expand and exterminate slowly... and at sometimes you must wait until you have ther right techs or social (for gold/happiness) to properly exploit.

ICS is still possible, but not before Industrial/Modern.. and it must be slow.

 

[Ryoga]

There is no such mechanics in Civ2, alpha centauri, or MOO1/2. How are you penalized for building more cities in Civ2 or AC? Only thing is actual cost of the settler, there is no such thing as Civ5 global happiness mechanics. How MOO penalizes you for settling more planets?

I can't talk for Civ2 but saying that there are absolutely no penalties for building more cities in Alpha Centauri makes me wonder if you ever played the game.

In Alpha Centauri there is the whole "Efficiency" system that makes you lose money (energy) the more your cities are far from your capital (this can be altered by your efficiency levels). Moreover there are some preset thresholds (number of cities depending on map size) that when passed not only will further decrease your overall efficiency but they will also cause a generalized increased drones rate, forcing you to spend more points in psych thus detracting from your economy and science.

So while in AC each city has its own "happiness" expanding still affects the overall "happiness" negatively.

Another recent 4x on the top of my mind is Endless Space which is also built on a system that causes more empire-wide unhappiness the more you expand. There are specific technologies to counter that or you can decrease taxation.


I think the only complain you can make is that in Civ V there aren't many options to counter your unhappiness until very late game, whereas in other 4x you could always find something to compensate. But penalties for expanding exist since a long time and are widespread among different 4x.

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

There is no such mechanics in Civ2, alpha centauri, or MOO1/2. How are you penalized for building more cities in Civ2 or AC? Only thing is actual cost of the settler, there is no such thing as Civ5 global happiness mechanics. How MOO penalizes you for settling more planets?

You are not following what I meant. Sure Civ V had global happiness as a mechanic, I never said I was talking about global happiness, I was talking about mechanics to curtail expansion.

Penalties That Curtail Expansion In Older Civs

1. Corruption : Very significant one that destroyed horizontal expansion in many Civs. I think the mechanic was in almost all Civs prior to V. Can't you remember RED SHIELDS curtailing expansion by making new cities useless once you got over a certain number ?
2. Waste : (Civ IV) Analagous to corruption.
3. Economic/Governmental Penalties for Horizontal Expansion : (Civ IV), Essentially tanked your economy the wider you went, unless you accounted for it.
4. Distance from the Capital Penalty : (Many Cvs, don't remember which) IIRC Was associated with Corruption/Waste and possibly Happiness too. This was the main reason for the Courthouse IIRC.
5. Local Happiness : (All Civs) Prevents expansion as forces cities into revolt if not addressed, hence reducing resources that can be produced and utilised to expand.
6. Health Resources : (Civ IV) Like local happiness only less of a factor. (Vertical Expansion)

Probably others, but I think I have made my point.

With regard to MOO, I said IIRC. I only had limited experience with the game and it was mainly 3 (which was panned IIRC). I would be surprised if there was not some mechanic in the game that penalised expansion through governmental costs, or tyranny of distance mechanics. But I will defer to your greater knowledge on this as I am far less familiar with MOO then I am CIV.

In summary CIV has always had in built mechanics to curtail expansion. Global happiness is a far better mechanic then CORRUPTION ever was. Corruption enforced hard limits on city numbers, global happiness does so far less.

FYI With regard to AC, I would have to double check the penalties for expansion.