Favorite Scenario

[krc]

Can I vote for "none"? In general, I prefer the more free-form goals of the game itself to the more constrained quest-like goals of scenarios. I try the scenarios once, but almost never go back to them.

 

[Nirosi]

Samurai Inv.Because I like Nippon,Joseon,Zhong Guo.

 

[FromBirth]

Can I vote for "none"? In general, I prefer the more free-form goals of the game itself to the more constrained quest-like goals of scenarios. I try the scenarios once, but almost never go back to them.

I agree with this but I have tried all of them and I enjoyed 1066 best as England on emperor. Very tense for most of the game, biggest sense of accomplishment and relief when I did realise I was going to make it.

 

[Steelyglint]

Invasion of Korea.

 

[The_Quasar]

Invasion of Korea

However, I have enjoyed them all.

 

[apocalypse105]

Why isn't there a napoleon scenario ?

Back to topic : Wonders of the Ancient World.

Because I love ancient/classical era

 

[That nerdy kid]

because they only release scenarios for civs they add. i would be happy if they made like 6 new scenarios. it would be amazing

 

[PhilBowles]

Only played the 1066 scenario so far, but absolutely loved it. Great map as well - glad it's available to play in the full game. It's only a shame you can't play the scenarios as multiplayer, especially since the AI doesn't seem to know the rules and how they differ from standard Civ (for example, in my game every AI-captured city was puppeted. Can they even win that way, as I doubt puppets will create the Domesday Shires? The Normans created swordsmen, but never motte and baileys, and I didn't catch any of their knights attacking twice. Also, none ever bought city state favour).

I particularly like the oddities that arise when you spawn Great Generals - my first was Oliver Cromwell, so I sent him over to Ireland to cause trouble (hey, why not?). Then I got (as Harald) William the Conquerer (either he'd died, or the spawn doesn't take account of the fixed general names assigned at the start of the scenario), who naturally helped defend Norwegian Oxford against the invading Normans (oh yes, and Rommel, who I sent around with Scottish Knights because, after all, they're the tanks of the Middle Ages).

It was probably the first game I've ever played where, frustrated that my Trireme (should have been renamed Longship for the scenario since it has different rules - needs iron but can cross non-coastal tiles - and is effectively a unique unit) couldn't kill Sveyn, I found myself saying "I want to be able to kill you, Sveyn, for challenging my claim to the Danish throne".

Not sure Hardrada did actually bring either crossbowmen or catapults to Stamford Bridge, though. And come on, Hastings isn't a city in the scenario? As a southerner, I am of course bound to say that the proliferation of barbarians in Scotland, Ireland and northern England is the one part of the scenario that's historically accurate.

It also reminded me a lot of my all-time favourite board game, Britannia (although 1066 is actually the last year in that game rather than the first), so I've voted for it even without having yet played the others.

Real shame there are no scenarios for the main game civs, particularly as the Civ V combat system favours scenario-type games like this much better than previous Civ game engines - I really hope they release a DLC scenario pack, since the scenario definitely justifies the cost of the DLC for someone who hasn't yet actually played the main game as Denmark (although they've been common adversaries).

Another vote for New World, I like the imperial conquest thingy.

I play an European power, sometimes it's a struggle with natives, sometimes a colonial war breaks out.
I guess I should try natives next!

Civilization V: Colonization? Hmm, I may well want to try that - never played the Civ IV one, but I have fond memories of the original. And as I recall the original was a 1UPT game, so it's a natural fit.

Playing as Harold Godwinson as England in the 1066 scenario is exhilarating to say the least. It's a real exercise in managing units and "damage control"- trying to avoid losing too much at once.

I randomly rolled Harald Hardrada, however all through the game I was thinking "This is amazing, but would be even better as Harold". Therein lies my next challenge...

However, playing on Prince (default), I noticed that the Danes and Normans struggled to make headway against the English cities - neither claimed more than four cities (and I ended up kicking the Danes off the island by capturing theirs), also they didn't make any effort to prioritise cities far enough from London to make Domesday Shires or prevent England from doing so. I think it would need a higher difficulty setting to balance it when playing the English, starting as they do with the advantage of having the necessary six cities (and London) to start on the victory condition immediately. I presume that the English default position has their army positioned near Stamford; in this game that meant I got to deal with and eliminate it quickly, but an AI Norway might struggle against both cities and Huskarls, giving the English an easier time.

I thought England and Normandy were very easy. In the game I recently finished as Normandy, I completely wiped out England and took over all of cities which originally belonged to England from both of the Vikings. The blitzing knight is a tank and the Mott and Bailey improvement makes it near impossible for the AI to take a city from Normandy. I agree that England was a lot of fun to play. It felt kind of like Korea in the Samurai Invasion scenario where you have a lot of cities which you have to defend from an overwhelming force. It is a bit humbling to have to lose cities and then retake them.

I've noticed in the main game that the AI is unable to cope with Citadels, at least up to Emperor (highest level I've yet played) - I've had them surrounding mine and sit there waiting to build up enough forces to attack before now, all the while being shot to pieces. I can imagine it wouldn't have a hope against Motte and Bailey.

I think i did the Mongols scenario when i first tried the game, but i don't really remember.

Never touched any of the scenarios since, but i really should it sounds like.

Are they more fun than doing the normal playing?

The 1066 one is very different from normal playing - you don't have techs or much in the way of city management (I just focused on units, armouries and wealth production to buy city states). Militaristic city states (the only ones available) act in the way they probably should in the main game. It's basically a boardgame-style wargame - as I say, to me it measures up well to, though is simpler than, Avalon Hill's Britannia. So it's a huge amount of fun but in a different way from normal Civ. Think of it as a self-contained game that exploits the Civ V engine more than a Civilization scenario.

I loved the viking scenario, though it was a bit too easy as Norway or Denmark, even on the higher difficulty levels. As Harold though it's brilliantly tactical and fast-paced - and a rather hair-raising introduction to the viking UA.

Yes, I now really want to play Denmark in the main game. Being able to disembark and move/fight the same turn is an amazing bonus, and 3-movement Berserkers are great. I've also gained a new appreciation for roads in Civ V - not just for trade routes after all.

EDIT to this already long post: Just played 1066 on King as Normandy - especially if you make the odd lapse (such as not attacking Hastings ... uh, I mean Ipswich as your first target, and so don't have time to fortify it before the Danes arrive in force), it's a much tenser experience, and all the better for it. For a good portion of the game I was juggling recapturing Ipswich and fending off attacks from Thetford and Norwich, and subsequently defending both cities against Danish invasions from the sea and the English still ensconced in Thetford). Won despite not completing the Domesday Book because I had the highest score at the end.

The different civs in this scenario come with some interesting advantages and disadvantages (well, not sure if Harald has disadvantages, but he does get to face the English army in force at the start of the game). The Danes will have a particularly tough time because their natural target is East Anglia, and only Norwich can produce a Domesday Shrine in time (unless you capture Ipswich very early), and most of the southern cities are very hammer-poor. This hits the Normans too, as does the fact that their closest targets are all too close to London to get a Domesday Shire. Normandy was very interestingly, and I think very well, balanced - they have superknights, but their infantry is by far the weakest in the game (Swordsmen and Pikemen, whereas everyone else gets Longswordsman UUs). In order to build Mottes and Baileys, which are very good defensively, you need to capture cities, which can be tough as a result of the poor infantry (Norman Knights don't seem to have the standard 'weak against cities' penalty for cavalry, but you only have two to start the game). Building them can also be slow, and I tended to run out of Swordsmen in the right places quite often. And without Norway powering through the north of England (never even made contact with Norway, although they apparently conquered Northumbria - Harold being better at uniting British territories than any real English ruler for the next 550 years) you get a taste for just what the game can be like when the English are able to remain in the game and put up a defence.

 

[Mesix]

I am surprised at how even this poll has turned out. With the exception of Paradise Found, all of the scenarios seem to have similar levels of approval from the CFC community.

 

[The_J]

Indeed surprising. Especially if you consider that probably more people bought Spain/Inca than Korea, and that a good bunch also received that DLC as preorder bonus.
If I should guess, then I'd say that there are probably much more people than we perceive who don't like the "fantasy wonders".

 

[iggymnrr]

Korea for me but it is close. There are 3 different social policy setups that work well depending on which power is being played: honor for the keshik civ, liberty/piety for the China/Korea team, and some kind of commerce setup with Japan.

The mongol challenge is also good and the wonder scenario is a decent remake of the same scenario from civ 3.

 

[Supr49er]

Vikings just ahead of Korea.