CIV5 expansion and War complaints. *rant*

[sukha]

My biggest complain has to do with expansion of player and the AI...
Civilizations throughout history were always trying to expand as far as they could until met with resistance of sorts.
Now in CIV5 expansion is punishing the player by making him loose % of his science gains and happiness.

I still don't understand how a city belonging to a different nation that I have conquered affects my whole civilization???

CIV5 is so punishing on expansion that warmongering players just sell or pillage the cities they capture.... How is this even acceptable as a game mechanic??? In real life the Nation would grab a piece of land and hold it, mark it on their map as theirs...
eg. Egypt, Rome, China, Russia, Germans in ww2 expanded their borders onto Russia...
(I don't think Hitler was building massive amounts of attractions to satisfy his country happiness needs)

And with the new % science penalty for building cities expansion it halts to a full stop at one point, most civilizations don't even share borders...
Now you can make a small map and cram horsehockytons of civilizations in there, but that's not how the game should be played.

I just played 3 days straight trying different strategies, map sizes, civilization counts, the game is so passive its ridiculous.

This game is supposed to be about civilizations, if you look at human history there were constant long wars between countries all the time, solely based on the land someone else wanted...

Don't believe me? Just the Europe alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

I really miss the times from CIV4 when Baudica would Conquer half the continent in Medieval.

 

[DemonMaster]

My biggest complain has to do with expansion of player and the AI...
Civilizations throughout history were always trying to expand as far as they could until met with resistance of sorts.
Now in CIV5 expansion is punishing the player by making him loose % of his science gains and happiness.

I still don't understand how a city belonging to a different nation that I have conquered affects my whole civilization???

CIV5 is so punishing on expansion that warmongering players just sell or pillage the cities they capture.... How is this even acceptable as a game mechanic??? In real life the Nation would grab a piece of land and hold it, mark it on their map as theirs...
eg. Egypt, Rome, China, Russia, Germans in ww2 expanded their borders onto Russia...
(I don't think Hitler was building massive amounts of attractions to satisfy his country happiness needs)

And with the new % science penalty for building cities expansion it halts to a full stop at one point, most civilizations don't even share borders...
Now you can make a small map and cram horsehockytons of civilizations in there, but that's not how the game should be played.

I just played 3 days straight trying different strategies, map sizes, civilization counts, the game is so passive its ridiculous.

This game is supposed to be about civilizations, if you look at human history there were constant long wars between countries all the time, solely based on the land someone else wanted...

Don't believe me? Just the Europe alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

I really miss the times from CIV4 when Baudica would Conquer half the continent in Medieval.

Most of the issues you have with the game is core issues and the game core of Civ 5 is the same regardless of expansion. The concept of the game is the same now as it was when Civ 5 Vanilla came out, its just more ways to play now.
What you should ask yourself is why did you buy the game in the first place. There where a demo of the game out so you could test it and there was even a demo out for BNW and yes, why did you buy BNW, did you really think they should change the core game or the concept of the game?
Perhaps instead of ranting here you should go back to play Civ 4, it is a good game or a perhaps a nice game chess.

Regarding on what different warlords through the history have done or not have done, well, Hitler killed a lot of civilians so have other maniac leaders through the history. Now, in Civ 5 you can't kill half the population in a town and bury them in massgraves, but you can raze the town and you can even stop razing the town. So in a way you can kill off a whole lot of people just as the real leaders actually did. Sweden plundered and killed a lot in Poland (edit: and the rest of northern Europe). In Civ 5 to do what Sweden did, well you can plunder the farms and when you take the cities you plunder them from artefacts and raze them (but stop the raze when they are small enough to not do you any harm). A lot of maniac leaders once upon a time has done a lot of nasty things instead of just conquering and expanding.
That the science go up (a very small amount) per city could be explained that if all your people who knows things come from your capital for example that have a library and a university then the ruling and everything new must come from here since in your other cities (who do increase the tech cost) don't understand you since they don't even have libraries or universities. But now you say, I do have libraries and universities in all my cities, good I say, those are worth more than the petty increase in tech and could also symbolize that all your kingdom is living and can contribute.

 

[Falconiano]

Those complaints will go away once you learn to play BNW.
The things you believe are "gone" are simply replaced in the endgame.
Some things are tweaked to make the game's ages last longer.

Yes, it's true that perhaps the DoF requirement for gold trading might be a lazy fix, the "I don't know how to fix this so I just lock it out" kind.
But the other things are ok (albeit still in need of some tweaking, which will come with patches).

 

[sukha]

Those complaints will go away once you learn to play BNW.
The things you believe are "gone" are simply replaced in the endgame.
Some things are tweaked to make the game's ages last longer.

Yes, it's true that perhaps the DoF requirement for gold trading might be a lazy fix, the "I don't know how to fix this so I just lock it out" kind.
But the other things are ok (albeit still in need of some tweaking, which will come with patches).

Bull****, early game units ie> Swordsman, Archer, Catapult are there for a reason... to wage war. The game as it is now punishes you for doing so. Unless you hit and run, which is ******ed to me in a game about evolution of mankind...

There is no such thing as "to Conquer" in CIV5. After 2-3 cities you are done Conquering and stuck wondering if this was worth anything at all. Your Science is down, you have massive happiness penalties and you are paying upkeep for **** that ain't even working.

 

[MerchantCo]

@Sukha:

No.

 

[MerchantCo]

Conquering isn't hard, even on high difficulty levels. Make sure to conquer cities with wonders or improved luxury resources.

 

[Fluffball]

I would say don't even bother trying to talk to this person considering the proliferation of swear words. He's is either really annoyed and won't listen, too stupid to listen or both.

 

[MerchantCo]

^

Agreed. This is why I hate rants.

 

[sukha]

I would say don't even bother trying to talk to this person considering the proliferation of swear words. He's is either really annoyed and won't listen, too stupid to listen or both.

I think it has more to do with you not being able to bring any real arguments to the table, than me using a couple of **** in my post.

Plain and simple, most AI's won't build more than 3-5 cities. If you are playing bigger map most of the time AI will not touch borders with each other and even if they have wars they wont take more than 1 city...
It doesn't feel like actual countries at war, more like someone throwing a skirmish in AOE2.

Every time I try and give CIV5 a chance I end up Playing CIV4...
CIV5 is just too boring because nothing ever happens and the challenge has more to do with handicaps than actual gameplay.

 

[DemonMaster]

I think it has more to do with you not being able to bring any real arguments to the table, than me using a couple of **** in my post.

Plain and simple, most AI's won't build more than 3-5 cities. If you are playing bigger map most of the time AI will not touch borders with each other and even if they have wars they wont take more than 1 city...
It doesn't feel like actual countries at war, more like someone throwing a skirmish in AOE2.

Every time I try and give CIV5 a chance I end up Playing CIV4...
CIV5 is just too boring because nothing ever happens and the challenge has more to do with handicaps than actual gameplay.

Then, bye bye, don't mind the door on your way out, this is an open society where we welcome everyone (apparently).

 

[sukha]

I hope the three of you are not the indication of what CIV5 part of civfanatics forum has become...
If you would just restrain from further posting that would be swell.

Now if someone would come up with some rational answers to my concerns and observations that would be awesome.

 

[DemonMaster]

I hope the three of you are not the indication of what CIV5 part of civfanatics forum has become...
If you would just restrain from further posting that would be swell.

Now if someone would come up with some rational answers to my concerns and observations that would be awesome.

You have a problem with the core game of Civ 5, the basics of the game. That didn't change with G&K and it didn't change with BNW and it will not change with a "fall patch" either or another expansion. I am sorry that you have bought a game (and expansions) that you don't like.
I have also bought games that I didn't like in the past. But I don't go over to the forums of those games just to say, I don't like it. The reason, what good would that do. I leave those forums to those who like those games.

 

[sukha]

You have a problem with the core game of Civ 5, the basics of the game. That didn't change with G&K and it didn't change with BNW and it will not change with a "fall patch" either or another expansion. I am sorry that you have bought a game (and expansions) that you don't like.
I have also bought games that I didn't like in the past. But I don't go over to the forums of those games just to say, I don't like it. The reason, what good would that do. I leave those forums to those who like those games.

I am just trying to have an open discussion about a topic that bothers me, that is intent and purpose of having a forum.

 

[animalcross]

Now in CIV5 expansion is punishing the player by making him loose % of his science gains and happiness.

I just played 3 days straight trying different strategies, map sizes, civilization counts, the game is so passive its ridiculous.

Firstly, the 10% science penalty is to stop the ICS strategy of having small cities at minimum distance, it doesn't discourage more cities, it discourages less developed, 1-4 citizen spam cities. Once you get a decent amount of science from a city, it pays for itself. As for the passiveness, you want to go back to vanilla? The game SHOULD be more passive if you ask me, no random DOW's, Friendly Civs like Gandhi not attacking you for sharing a border is how It should be, and I still have Monty jaguar rushing me (I actually managed to loose for the first time to a jaguar rush, but I was on a long peninsula with Montezuma slammed below me, he rushed a settler and had no way out until optics. I've also seen Shaka conquer before the Medieval era, and I mean destroy someone, and have teamed up with him early game, I see the game fine, in fact, BNW has given me the most fun with Civ V ever.

 

[sukha]

Firstly, the 10% science penalty is to stop the ICS strategy of having small cities at minimum distance, it doesn't discourage more cities, it discourages less developed, 1-4 citizen spam cities. Once you get a decent amount of science from a city, it pays for itself. As for the passiveness, you want to go back to vanilla? The game SHOULD be more passive if you ask me, no random DOW's, Friendly Civs like Gandhi not attacking you for sharing a border is how It should be, and I still have Monty jaguar rushing me (I actually managed to loose for the first time to a jaguar rush, but I was on a long peninsula with Montezuma slammed below me, he rushed a settler and had no way out until optics. I've also seen Shaka conquer before the Medieval era, and I mean destroy someone, and have teamed up with him early game, I see the game fine, in fact, BNW has given me the most fun with Civ V ever.

BNW is indeed much better.
Yes its indeed possible to have pop3 ICS spam to counter the %science, I may have exaggerated this a little.
I find it more of a problem that AI will never expand like a real civilization.
I myself will usually ICS like a madman with China or smth, AI will never go beyond its 5 city max builds...

If you ever played game like Mount and Blade campaign, you would notice that the world did not revolve around the player. Kingdoms would get wiped out and arise anew, politics would take place with or without you.
In CiV5 the AI is so passive that it feels like they do nothing.

This last game I am playing, Bismarck was actually kicking some ass in the beginning, but went to full stop and now I don't hear a thing from him anymore. He has insane amounts of cash like 5k and +150 a turn... Yet he does nothing with that cash, just hording it like a *****.
He was annihilating Spain and then left it at 1 city for no reason. Maybe 100 turns have passed since then, hes just sitting on his ass.

 

[mistermoo33]

A lot of people have noticed the passivity of BNW games. I've actually had a lot of games where other civs have massed on my borders, but then never actually attacked me, even though I was getting a lot of "x is plotting against you" messages from my spies and my allies' spies. So, I would say the answer for the AI itself is to wait for the fall patch.

As for the actual game mechanics that dissuade you from using a warmongering strategy... Yea, I see what you're saying. There's not really much incentive to warmonger. In SP the game is so passive you can just go tradition -> rationalism -> freedom and coast into an easy space victory in almost every game; unless it's Shaka you won't really be threatened in your idyllic specialist empire defended by 3 units.

I suggest you try multiplayer. It gives you a new perspective on war when you don't have to deal AI that start with free units (making early attacks unrealistic), never attack, and hate you the instant you declare war.

 

[Tehhiv]

I am not sure if I am doing anything different, but I have read a few posts now about the passiveness KD the AI. I will have to say, on my first game in BNW(which happens too be the one I am still playing). I am playing The Shoshone on king. Mi am not really noticing any difference. I have a game with Alexander and oda, monti and a few other self proclaimed war mongerers and they seem to keep up the pressure. Now if I think it's pressure because I may not be as good as some other people I do not know. But I find they are always keepi me on my toes. The only complaint I have, is that I gave not DOW anyone, but still have the warmongerer title.

 

[Torisen]

I dunno, in the game I just finished, France had 18 cities and Germany had 25. Of course, I was at about 100... I haven't played enough games to have an opinion on their ability to wage war in the new expansion, though.

 

[whiplash27]

IMO, Science output should increase when you're at war just like it always has in all of history.

 

[sukha]

Funny thing happened in the game I am playing right now.
Germany was always very aggressive towards me always hostile, then I decided to attack.
I get like 15 units to his borders, all of a sudden this guy contacts me. Lo and behold his status is friendly and he is complaining that I have forces close to his borders lulz.
For like 250 turns this guy was denouncing me and making remarks about my gold income and how its weird that barbarians didn't kill me off.

His army value was like 1200 nr1 and mine was 700 nr3 at that point....
Which I also found weird because my units were all 1 tech ahead of his.