A Civ5 Guide for the Civ4 Veteran *Updated 9/24*

[Vordeo]

Some of us don't want the civs to be balanced with each other.

Fair enough, I do though.

 

[Prototailz]

I think you should include UUs and UBs in this guide too since they can affect a civilization a lot too. For example, Hiawatha's UA isn't that awesome in my opinion either, but the Longhouse (+1 on forest tiles), on the other hand, can be really powerful on heavily forested maps (at least Earth maps have pretty huge forests), making Hiawatha/the Iroquois a potential production powerhouse, and therefore possibly making him a lot better than you currently put it out.

 

[goodolarchie]

While I'd love to focus on one super-cheese strategy to get a Deity domination win, I can't help but hope that in the next couple months an AI-combat-patch-fix or other major balancing patch will be released and my time would have been better spent elsewhere.
Not to knock the thread though, great discussion.

 

[yanner39]

While I'd love to focus on one super-cheese strategy to get a Deity domination win, I can't help but hope that in the next couple months an AI-combat-patch-fix or other major balancing patch will be released and my time would have been better spent elsewhere.
Not to knock the thread though, great discussion.

Just curious, but what would you fix? I play on Prince and just don't what you mean by this? Would you make it harder? I was feeling good about myself when defending myself versus Montezuma. I was attacking him from the sea as well as from land.

Also, what do you consider a super-cheesy strategy?


Nice playthrough BTW.

 

[Trickster7135]

I think you should include UUs and UBs in this guide too since they can affect a civilization a lot too. For example, Hiawatha's UA isn't that awesome in my opinion either, but the Longhouse (+1 on forest tiles), on the other hand, can be really powerful on heavily forested maps (at least Earth maps have pretty huge forests), making Hiawatha/the Iroquois a potential production powerhouse, and therefore possibly making him a lot better than you currently put it out.

I'm working on this for version 1.1, as well as something of a war guide for airplanes and submarines. Might have to start a huge map just to get a game that lasts that long.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

I am sorry to see that so many people have tunnel vision especially before they play the game. Case in point: Elizabeth. So many people have ripped on her UA, but I played as her recently and it worked quite well for me. I owned the seas and I could do it with fewer ships because within a turn I could bring more force to bear on an enemy than I even thought I could. At one point, Greece embarked a force of about six land units and four frigates intent on an allied city state. Based on the size of the force and the distance it had to travel I had about one turn to muster a defense. I sailed one ship of the line from two major islands away and got there just in time to open the cannon ports and crush the frigates. The embarked vessels scattered, but with the speed of my ships they didn't even make it back to dry land before they were overtaken. I then set out an army from the other side of the map and they got to the Greek island in about half the time it would have taken without the movement bonus. (The other aspect of the move bonus is that I consistently would send out a settler for a remote resource island and about a turn or two later see another embarked settler come out of the fog near my newly founded city).

I think it is incorrect to think that every civ should be strong on every map. Pangea has always and will always be a warmonger's dream and since we are so caught up in that particular map type we overlook the others. It's not a "super-cheese-strategy" to play to your strengths. If so then every person playing as Germany or Rome on a pangea map would be cheesing out as would a player of Siam or Greece that at any point bribes a city-state.

Finally, one thing I'm going to second from the voices above is that you should definitely not look at UA's in a bubble. On its face Arabia's UA may seem weak, but they have probably the strongest UB of any civ in the game. That was a big part of the consideration as well.

 

[DaviddesJ]

It's not a "super-cheese-strategy" to play to your strengths. If so then every person playing as Germany or Rome on a pangea map would be cheesing out as would a player of Siam or Greece that at any point bribes a city-state.

But it's wrongheaded to complain that the game is broken because it's too easy if you choose the most favorable civ on a particular map. If you want more challenge, then you should choose differently.

 

[Trickster7135]

I am sorry to see that so many people have tunnel vision especially before they play the game. Case in point: Elizabeth. So many people have ripped on her UA, but I played as her recently and it worked quite well for me. I owned the seas and I could do it with fewer ships because within a turn I could bring more force to bear on an enemy than I even thought I could. At one point, Greece embarked a force of about six land units and four frigates intent on an allied city state. Based on the size of the force and the distance it had to travel I had about one turn to muster a defense. I sailed one ship of the line from two major islands away and got there just in time to open the cannon ports and crush the frigates. The embarked vessels scattered, but with the speed of my ships they didn't even make it back to dry land before they were overtaken. I then set out an army from the other side of the map and they got to the Greek island in about half the time it would have taken without the movement bonus. (The other aspect of the move bonus is that I consistently would send out a settler for a remote resource island and about a turn or two later see another embarked settler come out of the fog near my newly founded city).

I think it is incorrect to think that every civ should be strong on every map. Pangea has always and will always be a warmonger's dream and since we are so caught up in that particular map type we overlook the others. It's not a "super-cheese-strategy" to play to your strengths. If so then every person playing as Germany or Rome on a pangea map would be cheesing out as would a player of Siam or Greece that at any point bribes a city-state.

Finally, one thing I'm going to second from the voices above is that you should definitely not look at UA's in a bubble. On its face Arabia's UA may seem weak, but they have probably the strongest UB of any civ in the game. That was a big part of the consideration as well.

You have some excellent points, and I'm putting a lot more effort to being fair and comprehensive to each civilization. Besides removing the rankings and the subjectivity, I am attempting to find the best use for each civilization, disregarding their relative strengths or weaknesses compared to other civs. I'm about halfway done now, and should be finished by tonight, after a long nap .

 

[Feyd Rautha]

But it's wrongheaded to complain that the game is broken because it's too easy if you choose the most favorable civ on a particular map. If you want more challenge, then you should choose differently.

I don't disagree. I said this in another thread, but I think we should look at Civ V as balanced for a continents map and not a pangea. Most of the people I see complaining about various civs being weak have a limited viewpoint of how to use the civ (e.g. manipulating trades as Arabia or raking in culture and food from city-states with Siam) or are predisposed towards a certain setting that makes that civ weak (e.g. Pangea maps and Elizabeth or raging barbs or islands and Monty). Yes, if you play Arabia like Rome you're going to think your UA sucks. Also, if you set the rules of the game outside the apparent Civ V balance standard of Terra or Continents maps, then you're bound to find problems.

Just saying, thinking about how to make a UA/UU/UB work to your advantage allows for much more depth than trying to fit everything into a generic good and bad box.

 

[ddd123]

[

Augustus Caesar - The Glory of Rome: +25% production to any building already built in the capital.
This ability is not quite as insane as it would have been in Civ4. This is because of building maintenance: every building has a gold per turn upkeep, greatly encouraging city specialization. It is still a very strong ability, and helps with the general lack of production in this game. Also, buildings build very slowly in this game, and even in your capital, you might not be able to build every building you can, unless you never build settlers, workers, or military units in your capital. Still, your capital will always have a very strong production, and it is feasible to build most if not all buildings in it during the game. Rush building with gold in the capital might be a good strategy as well.

can you explain why he is one of the top in your list even though you keep repeating you cant build that much in civ 5 and also cities are specialized so not copycat of capital etc etc (all right things ofc )

those and other reasons seem to point out the bonus of augustus is

 

[Vordeo]

I think it is incorrect to think that every civ should be strong on every map. Pangea has always and will always be a warmonger's dream and since we are so caught up in that particular map type we overlook the others. It's not a "super-cheese-strategy" to play to your strengths. If so then every person playing as Germany or Rome on a pangea map would be cheesing out as would a player of Siam or Greece that at any point bribes a city-state.

Agreed with this in general, but my main problem is that some UAs are clearly worse than others. Suleiman's, for instance, is clearly worse than Bismarck's. Also, Monty's is clearly worse than Napoleon's (3 culture/kill or 2 culture per city every turn?), which is a shame, as I love the flavor of the ability.

I don't want every UA to be OMG superpowered, I just don't want any UAs to be so bad that I'm turned off from actually playing the civ.

Finally, one thing I'm going to second from the voices above is that you should definitely not look at UA's in a bubble.

Definitely. There are a lot of synergies between UAs and UU/UBs in the game, and those certainly need to be taken into account. Would definitely like to see overall civ ratings.

On its face Arabia's UA may seem weak, but they have probably the strongest UB of any civ in the game. That was a big part of the consideration as well.

I haven't actually played Arabia much, but my understanding was that the doubled resources don't increase happiness? You can trade them away, sure, and it's a good UB, but for the me the Paper Maker is probably the best UB in the game, with the Burial Tomb second.

 

[Vordeo]

You have some excellent points, and I'm putting a lot more effort to being fair and comprehensive to each civilization. Besides removing the rankings and the subjectivity, I am attempting to find the best use for each civilization, disregarding their relative strengths or weaknesses compared to other civs.

Subjectivity is good, but I found the rankings very interesting (and judging by some of the comments, so has everyone else!). Maybe you could move those to a separate section so as to still keep them in the thread?

I'm about halfway done now, and should be finished by tonight, after a long nap .

The thread's been a good read so far, looking forward to this!

 

[DaviddesJ]

I don't want every UA to be OMG superpowered, I just don't want any UAs to be so bad that I'm turned off from actually playing the civ.

But, again, some of us like weaker civs and are more interested in playing them, because they let you make the game more challenging without having to increase the AI handicap. I guess you understand that you have your preference and I have mine. But why should they fulfill your preference rather than mine?

 

[Trickster7135]

This is a rather silly question, but does anyone know how to change thread titles? I managed to change it once, but it doesn't seem to want to change again for some reason

 

[Vordeo]

But, again, some of us like weaker civs and are more interested in playing them, because they let you make the game more challenging without having to increase the AI handicap. I guess you understand that you have your preference and I have mine. But why should they fulfill your preference rather than mine?

Because people generally like balance?

I understand where you're coming from, but there's a reason that they didn't make the Protoss significantly more powerful in Starcraft 2, nerfed the Redcoats in BtS, and so on. Balanced games are generally more appealing to people.

All that said, it'll all depend on what Firaxis/2k think the majority of their fanbase wants, so this discussion's a bit pointless and off topic.

Lastly, at least with modding we'll both be happy.

 

[Gozert]

Plus, if you want more challenge, go up in difficulty... Civilization has a lot of difficulty settings. If you're playing multiplayer, I don't even want to get started why you should balance the various civilizations. It's OK if some civilizations have circumstantial bonuses if the bonuses are good enough in the given circumstance, but I'd prefer to have every Civilization be pretty much equal in power (but different in playstyle) in any given situation.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Plus, if you want more challenge, go up in difficulty... Civilization has a lot of difficulty settings.

Sure, but everyone recognizes this is a poor substitute. To make the game challenging for people, you have to give the AI player big advantages: extra units, reduced building costs, and so on. We do that because it's necessary, but no one thinks it's ideal. The smaller of those types of handicaps you have to give, the better.

 

[Gozert]

I don't agree it's a poor substitute. You're either giving the AI bonuses or handicapping yourself. Either way it creates an advantage for the AI. The difference is that balanced nations are basicly a must for multiplayer games.

I do agree just having a better AI than Prince-level is the best solution, but I don't see that coming in a patch anytime.

 

[DaviddesJ]

You're either giving the AI bonuses or handicapping yourself.

No, I'm not. I can choose a civilization that has interesting but somewhat weaker abilities, that means I get a more balanced game without either giving the AI bonuses or handicapping myself.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No, I'm not. I can choose a civilization that has interesting but somewhat weaker abilities, that means I get a more balanced game without either giving the AI bonuses or handicapping myself.

You ARE handicapping yourself if the civ is actually weaker.

And since bonuses are circumstantial, then you can easily have a "weaker" civ even if they are all actually balanced.

for example... England is weaker on a Pangea map, Greece/Siam are weaker with 0/few city-states, Germany/Ottomans are weaker with 0 barbs.

Some civs will be weaker on Archipelago maps.

Egypt's UB is more powerful on 'empty' maps.

France's UA is weaker on Industrial Starts.


Picking a "Weak" civ is like picking a "weak" unit.... I will only build resourceless units, I will only play England, I will only invest in the Liberty tree, only build Farms, only get domination victory, etc.

It is a handicap....it may be a Fun handicap, but it is not a limitation imposed by the game rules.