A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V
- Thread starter masterminded
- Start date
Well, how about this.
Go play Civ V, but try to play it so that your Civ looks aesthetically correct. That is, no Horseman-only armies, no ICS, buildings building at an acceptable rate of build, and with a variety of improvements on the tiles - not just trade posts everywhere.
Rule of thumb: build every building and every unit at least one time for that game. No purchasing! Has to build with hammers.
Sound good?
Go play Civ V, but try to play it so that your Civ looks aesthetically correct. That is, no Horseman-only armies, no ICS, buildings building at an acceptable rate of build, and with a variety of improvements on the tiles - not just trade posts everywhere.
Rule of thumb: build every building and every unit at least one time for that game. No purchasing! Has to build with hammers.
Sound good?
Do a beehive empire (minimum spacing, lots of cities) with China or France, on standard speed. Go Liberty right side first. You'll get a headache if you try to go for max turn-to-turn builder efficiency, I don't think there's a soul in the world who has the patience for that.
It won't make you love the game out of nowhere, but it's definitely a new take, and is from what I've seen the most builder-esque strategy so far.
Well, that's a setback for me already. As i am used to (all Civ's) playing on HUGE maps, ALL CIv's possible and very high difficulty (not deity, not the highest, which are insane lvl and no fun(and yes i won them too , when i had the mood to even start such a crippled lvl).
And, Civ V horsemen rush is a exploit, just as ICS and rush/buy buildings. So don't worry; i already don't use those.
City states ? (i think are overpowered)
Barbs? (i think are giving the player too much credits (gold/exp)
Map?
And, Civ V horsemen rush is a exploit, just as ICS and rush/buy buildings. So don't worry; i already don't use those.
City states ? (i think are overpowered)
Barbs? (i think are giving the player too much credits (gold/exp)
Map?
Use only Military City States. May take barb camps, but no farming. Standard Map. Continents. Difficulty setting of choice. Must play all games up to turn 250 - even the crappiest looking crap start you think isn't viable. Other conditions apply. Either build one of everything, or get only 10 cities, all of which must be size 30+ before you win. No keeping conquered cities. If you conquer cities in war, gift them to other civs. No selling of cities.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
I can figure out how to play the game Roxlimn; I just keep finding mechanics that I find annoying and not-fun. Yes, I can raze cities and replant them with settlers to avoid courthouses. I can plaster trading posts on puppets to starve them of hammers so they build random junk slower. I can use magic maritime food to pop insta-cities. I can micromanage population growth all over the place because of the idiotic global happiness cap, and I can mint happiness with buildings once my empire has critical mass and is making cash.
All of these things reflect poor design, and I keep running into reminders all of the time. I can't partially buy things; I get chump change when I lose a race for a wonder, just to rub it in my face that I lost (but I can insta-buy anything else anywhere with cash); I can't control passive growth of my cities and the fool algorithm hates hills and forests, both very useful, and it makes them extremely costly to buy.
There are just plain bugs in the current diplomacy. AI's plant cities next to me and start unprovoked wars because "our close borders spark tension". AIs that dogpile me with chain-reaction declarations of war. AIs that brand me a warmonger, then attack me, after I join them in a war at their request.
Your points about military buildings and so on would be well taken if fighting was interesting or fun, but it's just not a tactical challenge. I'm either stomping the AI or on the receiving end of an ambush (which usually just means I have to get peace with one AI to wheel back and crush another.)
All of these things reflect poor design, and I keep running into reminders all of the time. I can't partially buy things; I get chump change when I lose a race for a wonder, just to rub it in my face that I lost (but I can insta-buy anything else anywhere with cash); I can't control passive growth of my cities and the fool algorithm hates hills and forests, both very useful, and it makes them extremely costly to buy.
There are just plain bugs in the current diplomacy. AI's plant cities next to me and start unprovoked wars because "our close borders spark tension". AIs that dogpile me with chain-reaction declarations of war. AIs that brand me a warmonger, then attack me, after I join them in a war at their request.
Your points about military buildings and so on would be well taken if fighting was interesting or fun, but it's just not a tactical challenge. I'm either stomping the AI or on the receiving end of an ambush (which usually just means I have to get peace with one AI to wheel back and crush another.)
I'm trying to take the discussion into factual realms.
masterminded thinks that it's not possible or optimal to win culture games with large civs. This is not true. He thinks that buildings are not worth building. Also not true. He thinks Brandenburg Gate (of all wonders!) is crap. It's remarkable in its own way how divergent our views are on the game.
I have had no problems expanding big and large in Civ V. There are virtually no incentives to stay small, and what barriers there are can be surmounted in optimized ways, just as they could before.
I've won culture with large Civ. Continental empire. King difficulty.
And I handicapped myself with Japan, which is a warring Civ and not a culture one. On that same game, I had a shot at UN AND Space Race.
Now someone is going to pipe up and say (difficulty level too low), true. I'm trying emperor now. But the point is, its doable on settings where the AI does get advantages.
CiV games are so very varied depending on who you start next to and how their attitude is modified. A pacifist Sulieman is easy to deal with, but have him start alone half a continent away and time to build an empire and its a whole different game. Yes we get these sweeping accusations of
As for the other points, there's always room for wonder bashing, but I'm fine with the slightly underpowered wonders in this game.
And I handicapped myself with Japan, which is a warring Civ and not a culture one. On that same game, I had a shot at UN AND Space Race.
Now someone is going to pipe up and say (difficulty level too low), true. I'm trying emperor now. But the point is, its doable on settings where the AI does get advantages.
CiV games are so very varied depending on who you start next to and how their attitude is modified. A pacifist Sulieman is easy to deal with, but have him start alone half a continent away and time to build an empire and its a whole different game. Yes we get these sweeping accusations of
As for the other points, there's always room for wonder bashing, but I'm fine with the slightly underpowered wonders in this game.
Maybe you are right. You'll see, i never enjoyed the tinier maps in other CIV's, with lesser CIV's.
I like to play it BIG, with huge empires. I never became bored with these settings, on older CIV's while i do get bored now soon, even before 0BC.
But i am willing to step away from 'my favorable settings" to see if there's some joy to find in this game.
(my english may seem silly at times, i am Dutch and my english is so-so.)
May i add i am not interrested in a non-war game ? So cultural, diplo or any other, in my mind lame (and boring) victory-condition ? I like to add the flavor WAR into
the mixture, without it; i won't enjoy ANY civ game. Been there, done that.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
Selling all the cities at the end for cheap costs?
Anecdotal evidence.
EDIT: I don't actually care for the argument either way, but if a person says "optimal", you can't give an example.
1. Getting cities from war should be a trade-off between just plainly settling it and keeping what spoils you get. There are plus sides to annexing, puppeting, and resettling. Currently, puppeting has issues that make it much too effective, but it shouldn't be crippling to simply annex your gains in turn.
You may find this annoying. I actually like this as it makes keeping conquered territory a strategic decision rather than a forgone conclusion.
2. Maritime food is an attempt to globalize food distribution in Civ V. It's much too effective in the latter eras for small cities, but this is both good and bad. It's not much worse than Sid's Sushi in this regard, in point of fact.
3. Global happiness caps theoretically put a cap on Civs so that smaller Civs have a chance to compete. In practice, it's more like barriers to growth that can eventually be surmounted. There is no need to micromanage population growth. You can broadly plan your cities so that you have just enough cities to reach plateau level (about size 10-ish) at your current projected happiness resources.
4. Partial buys I don't get, but I don't see how this is necessarily poor design. You have to buy everything whole, or build everything whole. It's a limitation on the power of gold, which is powerful enough as it is.
5. Losing a Wonder Race should cost you. In Civ IV, the gold return was equitable, and it wasn't uncommon to build a wonder for the gold return on losing rather than for the Wonder itself. This is good design, not bad design, since it follows intent. Losing a race shouldn't be good.
6. I don't see a problem with the Culture Algorithm making valuable production tiles more expensive. Generally, things that are great should be expensive. It would make more sense to make getting to luxury tiles even more expensive than getting to hills and forests, but I'm guessing that that would be bad for strategic placement.
If you don't like paying much gold, play Washington.
7. All the Civs expand and want to carve a name for themselves. If they settle next to you and then send messages about not liking border tensions, then the resulting war isn't, in fact, unprovoked. THEY are provoking YOU! I don't see anything wrong with the behavior, to be honest. Did you want Civ V to have pushover Civs?
Jediron:
Well, first off, Civ isn't a very good war game and never was. Let's get that off the table right now.
Now, if you want to wage war, then the solution is simple: Win Domination but only keep the Capitals of the AIs you defeat. Gift everything else back.
Well, first off, Civ isn't a very good war game and never was. Let's get that off the table right now.
Now, if you want to wage war, then the solution is simple: Win Domination but only keep the Capitals of the AIs you defeat. Gift everything else back.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
Good lord Rox, you come across as unwilling to give an inch. You defend ridiculous stuff and reasonable stuff with equal vigor. I told you that I know how to do these things, but that doesn't change the design itself being garbage.
The algorithm for culture growth makes a bunch of choices for me. In this game these are the sort of choices that I like to make for myself. Why not make people pay for the privilege of having their worker or city make something that the AI doesn't like? Christ, would it hurt you if other people had this option? Can you see why it could be annoying?
Do you even understand that the cultural boundary algorithm doesn't make "valuable" things expensive? It makes *things it doesn't value* expensive - so if you disagree with its judgement you're sunk.
Your habit of defending everything reflexively and not listening means that your sensible points get missed. Try a different approach; you have a lot of interesting insights.
The algorithm for culture growth makes a bunch of choices for me. In this game these are the sort of choices that I like to make for myself. Why not make people pay for the privilege of having their worker or city make something that the AI doesn't like? Christ, would it hurt you if other people had this option? Can you see why it could be annoying?
Do you even understand that the cultural boundary algorithm doesn't make "valuable" things expensive? It makes *things it doesn't value* expensive - so if you disagree with its judgement you're sunk.
Your habit of defending everything reflexively and not listening means that your sensible points get missed. Try a different approach; you have a lot of interesting insights.
No, i know. I just say i want some WAR in the game, whatever vic condition. Is that better?
And thnks for the info, as if i did not know CIV is not the best wargame . Atleast i had fun with CIV 1,2 and III doing so, with all their habits.
Making War in Civ V was fun for...ehn...two hours ?
And thnks for the info, as if i did not know CIV is not the best wargame . Atleast i had fun with CIV 1,2 and III doing so, with all their habits.
Making War in Civ V was fun for...ehn...two hours ?
