Simplified game?
- Thread starter quarryman
- Start date
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
Try my world map if you don't want city states hogging up prime real estate. 
Btw op I symphatize with you. I think actually the main problem might be the chronic lack of production that you have in Civ V, especially at the start. Even with a phenomenal capital, it's very rare to get every building built (maybe with Venice and Big Ben when you can just buy everything). While it might be argued that this adds strategy in the form of hard choices, it's also a constant pain in the back of my brain. The trade units and Archaeologists that were added in BNW mean that those choices just got a tad too hard imo. I could live with incomplete build lists in my secondary cities; but by the Renaissance I should be able to have every building built in my capital, so that I can concentrate on Wonders. In the previous Civs this could be accomplished with relative ease (at least Civ II and III, not sure about IV).
There is a mod available that doubles the amount of research times but leaves production as it is (a kind of 'half-Marathon'); perhaps I should install it and see how it goes. However, I don't want to drift too far from the 'average' game experience, as I like to compare my progress with other players. Thankfully on my world map (ahem, advertizing again
), most starting locations have very good production so the issue is alleviated somewhat. Expect stiff competition for wonders though!
Btw op I symphatize with you. I think actually the main problem might be the chronic lack of production that you have in Civ V, especially at the start. Even with a phenomenal capital, it's very rare to get every building built (maybe with Venice and Big Ben when you can just buy everything). While it might be argued that this adds strategy in the form of hard choices, it's also a constant pain in the back of my brain. The trade units and Archaeologists that were added in BNW mean that those choices just got a tad too hard imo. I could live with incomplete build lists in my secondary cities; but by the Renaissance I should be able to have every building built in my capital, so that I can concentrate on Wonders. In the previous Civs this could be accomplished with relative ease (at least Civ II and III, not sure about IV).
There is a mod available that doubles the amount of research times but leaves production as it is (a kind of 'half-Marathon'); perhaps I should install it and see how it goes. However, I don't want to drift too far from the 'average' game experience, as I like to compare my progress with other players. Thankfully on my world map (ahem, advertizing again
), most starting locations have very good production so the issue is alleviated somewhat. Expect stiff competition for wonders though!Turn on Diplo victory, turn off City states, add 22 players. Now thats some real diplo. I played once and an AI won diplo victory.
I do find CS makes the game easy. CS are very easy to manipulate, much easier than AI. The patronage line is overpowered, all you need is two policies from there to be able to reap all the bonuses from every single CS without investing a dollar.
I do find CS makes the game easy. CS are very easy to manipulate, much easier than AI. The patronage line is overpowered, all you need is two policies from there to be able to reap all the bonuses from every single CS without investing a dollar.
I know, I turn them on\off sometimes. It seems that AI progress lot faster with barbs off. With barbs on (especially raging barbs) AI tends to spam lot of early units, so they fall short on building infrastructure.
... so without Library in their city, you quickly catch up with their tech bonuses, even on DT.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
BNW and BTS are pretty similar. Corporations and such in BTS are basically an extension of the religion mechanic with cost.
Don't get me started on vassals. I love civ IV, but there were few mechanics on such a broken level as vassals:
- Targets capitulate to you if you get weaker in some instances
- Targets won't capitulate because you're at war with another civ that is stronger than them, but much weaker than you
- 8 tile rule shatters the willingness/resistance
- It's possible to win on high levels by letting your vassal conquer everyone, abusing deity bonuses via gifting them cheapo units to upgrade
- Peacevassals were used by AI as de facto permanent alliances
The only mechanic that was more botched and indefensible was random events. One of the best things about V is that it is far less dependent on pure luck screw, both in early combat and with nonsense like that. Its spawns might not be great, but spawns have never been great in Civ.
Edit:
I'll vehemently resist stripping the importance of strategic choice in a strategy game
. One of civ's selling points is its depth/replayability. There are certainly shallow TBS out there if you want one, don't bring that into civ!I agree, it was a terribly implemented system and I don't want them back either, that or the overpowered permanent alliances.
If anything the like might be interesting in Civ 5 it could be ideology-based alliances, and religion-based Holy Leagues (vanishing when civs disc. Scientific Theory or open Rationalism). But they would have to be well implemented.
Just curious, do you plan to turn off espionage as well?
The rule of thumb I read someplace was to add a major civ for every 2 CS eliminated. The default at Standard (8 civs, 16 CS) does frequently feel too crowded to me, but I think what you propose would feel much too sparse.
I respect forcing a conquest victory, and since you have disabled score, and propose to start with lots of space, would I be correct to assume that you are looking forward to ending a game with nukes, GDR, and XCOM?
If that is the case, why not use the accelerated start settings? (I have not tried them myself.)
Silverman6083
History-Lover
A SIMPLER GAME. MAKING CIV A SIMPLER GAME. WHY WOULD YOU WANT THAT.
Just play Call of Duty instead like seriously CiV can't get any simpler
Just play Call of Duty instead like seriously CiV can't get any simpler
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
To be fair, with the utterly botched matchmaking/net code/lag comp in that series it's not really possible to "play" it. It's more a game where you hold a controller and observe what happens
.FFS Blops 2 had 133 ms of lag.........on a single console split-screen (IE 0 ping, no connection to anything else). One guy sees the other over 1/10 second sooner. Now add random lag effects and havvvvvvvvvvvvve fun!
Kind of like Civ V on its vanilla_beta_sale release, products shouldn't be sold in that state. When one things simpler TBS, at least draw a comparison to another game where one's choices matter a little bit
.Update:
So I created a game (playing as Spain) with
4 Civs Picked vanilla Civs to ensure they suited the rules I set. Rome, Greece and India.
No city states
Continents
No Barbs
No Science or Diplomatic victories
No espionage
And, it was much more enjoyable! But let me explain why:
The game started out with Greece and myself on one big continent and Rome and India on the other. Pretty quickly Rome had captured Ghandi's capital and he was steaming ahead. A timely declaration of war by Greece meant I had the opportunity to increase my "living space".
I managed to exterminate most of Greece (with numerous pathetic pleas for peace) with the exception of one settler who managed sneak off into the ocean. I chased after him but suddenly spotted a Roman settler moving across my continent. Focusing my attention on him he moved down the map until he found just enough land to set up a city. Very annoying. Right in the middle of my cities.
The game progressed. Without having to worry about espionage or city states or even science too much I was able to focus on building my cities correctly and managing troops.
And sure enough Rome declared war. A bit dumb really. My cities were defended well enough, though I had a far inferior army. I managed to fend off the first attack and once I had gathered enough troops I conquered his lone city nestled between mine. He was pissed but we eventually agreed a peace treaty.
Wondering where Greece had got to I found him on a single hex of land in the middle of the ocean. Ha! No need to worry about him for a while.
Rome, meanwhile had begun to eat up the land around him and was shooting ahead on religion and the size of his military. His score was also around 1500 with me languishing on 1100 or so. He had built a few more wonders than me too.
Its now the year 1950 and I think this game is beyond me now. Rome has just declared war AGAIN and has sent huge army to take me out. Even if I survive this one I'll eventually lose on score.
However, I've found it very enjoyable. By stripping back the game it's allowed me to get to grips with many of the mechanics of the game. Now I plan to add back City States and then maybe espionage. Followed at a later point by the different victories. I can't see myself adding barbarians back for a while. I just don't like them.
Glad I did this. Thanks for all the (helpful) replies.
So I created a game (playing as Spain) with
4 Civs Picked vanilla Civs to ensure they suited the rules I set. Rome, Greece and India.
No city states
Continents
No Barbs
No Science or Diplomatic victories
No espionage
And, it was much more enjoyable! But let me explain why:
The game started out with Greece and myself on one big continent and Rome and India on the other. Pretty quickly Rome had captured Ghandi's capital and he was steaming ahead. A timely declaration of war by Greece meant I had the opportunity to increase my "living space".
I managed to exterminate most of Greece (with numerous pathetic pleas for peace) with the exception of one settler who managed sneak off into the ocean. I chased after him but suddenly spotted a Roman settler moving across my continent. Focusing my attention on him he moved down the map until he found just enough land to set up a city. Very annoying. Right in the middle of my cities.
The game progressed. Without having to worry about espionage or city states or even science too much I was able to focus on building my cities correctly and managing troops.
And sure enough Rome declared war. A bit dumb really. My cities were defended well enough, though I had a far inferior army. I managed to fend off the first attack and once I had gathered enough troops I conquered his lone city nestled between mine. He was pissed but we eventually agreed a peace treaty.
Wondering where Greece had got to I found him on a single hex of land in the middle of the ocean. Ha! No need to worry about him for a while.
Rome, meanwhile had begun to eat up the land around him and was shooting ahead on religion and the size of his military. His score was also around 1500 with me languishing on 1100 or so. He had built a few more wonders than me too.
Its now the year 1950 and I think this game is beyond me now. Rome has just declared war AGAIN and has sent huge army to take me out. Even if I survive this one I'll eventually lose on score.
However, I've found it very enjoyable. By stripping back the game it's allowed me to get to grips with many of the mechanics of the game. Now I plan to add back City States and then maybe espionage. Followed at a later point by the different victories. I can't see myself adding barbarians back for a while. I just don't like them.
Glad I did this. Thanks for all the (helpful) replies.
Had to come back to reply to this post.
Civ "can't get any simpler"?
That, my good friend, is complete bollocks. Civ is a beautifully complex game.
Similar threads
