Conspirator
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Messages
- 388
Is anyone else finding that resources aren't always there? For example I'm playing a game where I have only one Iron resource, with 6 Iron. I've built a mine on the Iron, and connected a trade network from my capital to the city that has the Iron resource mined. But I still have 0 Iron available? Is this a bug or am I missing something here?
I'm currently playing my first game as Egypt on King difficulty on Epic speed Huge map, Continents. Generally I'm quite liking the game. It's certainly different from Civilization 4 and still hasn't got that comfort zone I had when I play Civ 4, i.e. I know exactly what to do, what to build, what to research in Civ 4, while that comfort is not there in Civ 5. It does have a lot of similarities but there is certainly a whole new layer of concepts I need to fully understand before I can say, truly, which game I prefer.
I haven't been able to go on an offensive as of yet. There is a lot of free land, so I've just settled new cities wherever there are new luxury resources, and aimed mainly for plains hills to get as much production as possible. I currently have 6 cities, 5 relatively close together but with a lot of space in between the gaps (buying tiles is quite expensive, so don't generally do it). Does anyone else find that cultural expansion is quite difficult? And has anyone else found that the maps seem to be a lot larger than Civ 4? (probably because of the difficult of border expansion/hexes?)
Diplomacy wise it doesn't seem to be as complex as Civ 4 but I'm still in the early stages (around 1ad, turn 130 odd I think) of the game so don't really need any help at the moment. I do like how they come up in the game sometimes and add little comments which give an insight into how they are feeling. For example one civ apologised for declaring war on a CS that was friendly to me, and offered me to say no prob it's ok, or you will pay. You can demand other civs not to settle near you. It's quite obvious when someone isn't happy with you, or is unsure about you, etc. but how they react to events in game. They also mock you. I like how deals end every so many turns automatically. It does certainly have a lot of potential. it reminds me of Civ 2 for some reason.
The game is taking a very long time to get going. Whether this is a bad or good thing I'm not sure, but you do certainly feel a bit held back in terms of production compared to Civ 4 (but only because of civilian rushing being taken out). I'm unsure whether I like this or not yet, need to see how things play out but I'm certainly not against the move, I always liked long game, and it does mean you need to decide a lot more carefully what you want to produce. Something you select now will give a result in 15 turns, rather than pretty much instantaneously in Civ 4 with rushing. Because buildings cost maintenance now and units cost a lot of maintenance you need to decide what to build, and the units you have need to go a long way for you.
I'm no longer breaking about even financially anymore like in Civ 4, I want to have a big surplus to help leverage actions in game. Which is good. I do wish build wealth was better though, much better to produce a unit and then kill it than to build wealth.
As of right now I don't really see the need to attack any of my neighbours apart from to push them back culturally away from my borders, because I have a lot of space and my cities aren't even near half their potential if I focused on buying tiles instead of rushing cities. Maybe you should start the game and focus on only a few cities, like 3 and then build up an empire later by conquest, i.e. capturing select juicy few high happiness/production powerhouses? Does anyone know what happens culturally when you take a city, do you retain the tiles the city owned or is it like Civ 4 when you were left with a 1 tile city?
I'm currently playing my first game as Egypt on King difficulty on Epic speed Huge map, Continents. Generally I'm quite liking the game. It's certainly different from Civilization 4 and still hasn't got that comfort zone I had when I play Civ 4, i.e. I know exactly what to do, what to build, what to research in Civ 4, while that comfort is not there in Civ 5. It does have a lot of similarities but there is certainly a whole new layer of concepts I need to fully understand before I can say, truly, which game I prefer.
I haven't been able to go on an offensive as of yet. There is a lot of free land, so I've just settled new cities wherever there are new luxury resources, and aimed mainly for plains hills to get as much production as possible. I currently have 6 cities, 5 relatively close together but with a lot of space in between the gaps (buying tiles is quite expensive, so don't generally do it). Does anyone else find that cultural expansion is quite difficult? And has anyone else found that the maps seem to be a lot larger than Civ 4? (probably because of the difficult of border expansion/hexes?)
Diplomacy wise it doesn't seem to be as complex as Civ 4 but I'm still in the early stages (around 1ad, turn 130 odd I think) of the game so don't really need any help at the moment. I do like how they come up in the game sometimes and add little comments which give an insight into how they are feeling. For example one civ apologised for declaring war on a CS that was friendly to me, and offered me to say no prob it's ok, or you will pay. You can demand other civs not to settle near you. It's quite obvious when someone isn't happy with you, or is unsure about you, etc. but how they react to events in game. They also mock you. I like how deals end every so many turns automatically. It does certainly have a lot of potential. it reminds me of Civ 2 for some reason.
The game is taking a very long time to get going. Whether this is a bad or good thing I'm not sure, but you do certainly feel a bit held back in terms of production compared to Civ 4 (but only because of civilian rushing being taken out). I'm unsure whether I like this or not yet, need to see how things play out but I'm certainly not against the move, I always liked long game, and it does mean you need to decide a lot more carefully what you want to produce. Something you select now will give a result in 15 turns, rather than pretty much instantaneously in Civ 4 with rushing. Because buildings cost maintenance now and units cost a lot of maintenance you need to decide what to build, and the units you have need to go a long way for you.
I'm no longer breaking about even financially anymore like in Civ 4, I want to have a big surplus to help leverage actions in game. Which is good. I do wish build wealth was better though, much better to produce a unit and then kill it than to build wealth.
As of right now I don't really see the need to attack any of my neighbours apart from to push them back culturally away from my borders, because I have a lot of space and my cities aren't even near half their potential if I focused on buying tiles instead of rushing cities. Maybe you should start the game and focus on only a few cities, like 3 and then build up an empire later by conquest, i.e. capturing select juicy few high happiness/production powerhouses? Does anyone know what happens culturally when you take a city, do you retain the tiles the city owned or is it like Civ 4 when you were left with a 1 tile city?
