Am I playing Civ 5 incorrectly?

[Nicol.Bolas]

mate, you just started playing the game, are playing on low difficulty levels and don't know much about the mechanics. Try a game on immortal and see how the AI creams you. Then start thinking about how you can improve and win. If you're the type of person who enjoys challenging games then get challenged.

I don't love the game civ 5 yet. I like it but I'm not in love with it. Even though it is my opinion that it cannot compare yet to civ 4 in terms of quality and depth and doesn't even come close, I'm still playing it. Because there is beginning to emerge a good base upon which can be built a great game. Give it a chance, you might be surprised and the future is only going to be brighter.

now this is all wrong.
the difficulty is not that much related to enjoyment of the game

almost everyone enjoyed DOOM, I did too, and i enjoyed it even on the lowest difficulty.
going to Ultra Violence (2nd hardest) only gave me more fun and game time. yet most people never even reached that. and I personally never beated nightmare.

in civ4, I started at warlord, and enjoyed it too, although the game was easy for me at that level.

so really, I consider this argument about upping difficulty flawed.
especially in civ games, where difficulty just adds more AI bonus

Yeah they should bring back Sid level.

For CIV I think diety level is close to unplayably hard. It's doable I've done it once and it was fairly lucky. But I challenge anyone to do that without having random seed on reload turned on.

CiV I couldn't say I only played it on Emperor so far and won a time victory on that as was not going for any particular victory and just wanted to get a feel for the game at that level. Only had domination victory turned on.

Lots of whiners in this forum though moaning about how bad CiV is, its more realistic, if you want totally unreal civ play Civ III and go stack kill everyone with the ludicrous amount troops you can build by turn 60. Or there's always CIV which is now modded to hell and back.

Problems are modable or patchable, where's the beef?

wait, so basicaly you are telling that 3 unit army is more realistic then 60units army?

 

[Rince]

Oh well.. back to Civ 4 then. It's not like Civ 5 brought anything new anyway...

Why did you bother asking for help then. It feels like you just wanted to get confirmation that Civ 4 > Civ 5. And this is easy to get on this forum.

Cultural is the only winning condition that you have to plan in advance. All the others can be achieved simply by outplaying the AI.

 

[Aos Si]

now this is all wrong.
the difficulty is not that much related to enjoyment of the game

almost everyone enjoyed DOOM, I did too, and i enjoyed it even on the lowest difficulty.
going to Ultra Violence (2nd hardest) only gave me more fun and game time. yet most people never even reached that. and I personally never beated nightmare.

in civ4, I started at warlord, and enjoyed it too, although the game was easy for me at that level.

so really, I consider this argument about upping difficulty flawed.
especially in civ games, where difficulty just adds more AI bonus



wait, so basicaly you are telling that 3 unit army is more realistic then 60units army?

Way to misread what I said I've built multiple stacks of thousands in total in game that is ludicrous. Let's say each unit makes up the standard 1000 men, about 250 Modern armour, that's a million active troops in the field, that is absurd no standing army could be on active duty in those numbers without ruining itself either from starvation or crippling debt in modern times. It's more realistic to have modest, indeterminate number armies than fricking millions this is most definitely not Sparta!

Let me ask you what the current size of an average force in combat is say in the richest country currently the US?

Is it more fun? Probably not, is it more realistic: of course.

Most armies up to the industrial times would have a unit of horsemen (elite usually), archers, and infantry and usually some sort of artillery battery, numbers would commonly be in the tens of thousands in total. The largest ever army in the field was either Persias estimated at about 200,000 or so ( or 1 million if you believe the rather self agrandising Herodotus: Histories) or the combined allied forces in WWII who made up dozens of countries. What they don't have is unlimited resources to build mega armies, this is unrealistic. This what I meant.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

@Aos Si, how do you know how many troops a unit represent?

I may be mistaken, but Napoleon led 600.000 men into Russia.

At the height of the India >< Pakistan conflict there were over 1.000.000 troops involved.

 

[Aos Si]

@Aos Si, how do you know how many troops a unit represent?

I may be mistaken, but Napoleon led 600.000 men into Russia.

At the height of the India >< Pakistan conflict there were over 1.000.000 troops involved.

Because its clearly not a brigade and its clearly not a company being as units between that number represent 300-1300 depending on type its common sense 1000 is probably a solid median I think. this is not a small group of troops if it was it could not take on cities or do half the stuff units do.

On both sides being the operative word there. And I doubt all of them were in the field at once. So clearly that is irrelevant.

Napoleons entire army nearly starved to death. That's an example that's actually on my side not against it.

Long range battles in theatres of war with adequate supply lines are what it takes to maintain forces in the field. If you are stupid enough to over extend yourself as Hitler and Napoleon did in Russia then you are going to pay the price.

Like I say if you want realism then you pay the price of fun. It's up to you but I wish people would stop whining its not like there aren't alternatives if you hate it so much. Hell play total war if you want to see how damaging attrition is, disease, economics, politics, starvation, morale all play a part in determining what size of an army you can maintain in the field.

Fireteam 4 NCO
Squad/Section 8&#8211;13 Squad leader
Platoon 26&#8211;55 Platoon leader
Company 80&#8211;225 Captain/Major
Battalion 300&#8211;1,300 (Lieutenant) Colonel
Regiment/Brigade 3,000&#8211;5,000 (Lieutenant) Colonel/
Brigadier (General)
Division 10,000&#8211;15,000 Major General
Corps 20,000&#8211;45,000 Lieutenant General
Field army 80,000&#8211;200,000 General
Army group 400,000&#8211;1,000,000 Field Marshal
Army Region 1,000,000&#8211;3,000,000 Field Marshal
Army theater 3,000,000&#8211;10,000,000 Field Marshal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade

Please note that theatre is combined forces, this does not mean one country has ever fielded 10,000,000 men. It probably refers to WWII where the combined allied forces were in the region of 10,000,000 and they wouldn't of all been in the field at once anyway, plus there were about 50 or 60 nations involved.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

Way to misread what I said I've built multiple stacks of thousands in total in game that is ludicrous. Let's say each unit makes up the standard 1000 men, about 250 Modern armour, that's a million active troops in the field, that is absurd no standing army could be on active duty in those numbers without ruining itself either from starvation or crippling debt in modern times. It's more realistic to have modest, indeterminate number armies than fricking millions this is most definitely not Sparta!

Let me ask you what the current size of an average force in combat is say in the richest country currently the US?

Is it more fun? Probably not, is it more realistic: of course.

Most armies up to the industrial times would have a unit of horsemen (elite usually), archers, and infantry and usually some sort of artillery battery, numbers would commonly be in the tens of thousands in total. The largest ever army in the field was either Persias estimated at about 200,000 or so ( or 1 million if you believe the rather self agrandising Herodotus: Histories) or the combined allied forces in WWII who made up dozens of countries. What they don't have is unlimited resources to build mega armies, this is unrealistic. This what I meant.

boy you are confused...
you just make up some numbers as a proof?
I myself just considered the "units", the be either platoons or squads, depending on their type and era.

also if you are in for realism, sign up for Iraq. games yre about fun, so it seems strange to me that you would consider fun less important then realism.

also civ5 is less realistic in everything.... did I mention archers with rocket fueled arrows that have greater distance then fire arms? manouvering cavalry among continents?
and not talking about all the realism that was streamlined away?

well well, whenever I see someone with a civ5 avatar, I know I am in for a lough.
civ does simulate maintanence, at least4 does. but maybe in 5 it was streamlined, IDK

 

[Aos Si]

boy you are confused...
you just make up some numbers as a proof?
I myself just considered the "units", the be either platoons or squads, depending on their type and era.

also if you are in for realism, sign up for Iraq. games yre about fun, so it seems strange to me that you would consider fun less important then realism.

also civ5 is less realistic in everything.... did I mention archers with rocket fueled arrows that have greater distance then fire arms? manouvering cavalry among continents?
and not talking about all the realism that was streamlined away?

well well, whenever I see someone with a civ5 avatar, I know I am in for a lough.
civ does simulate maintanence, at least4 does. but maybe in 5 it was streamlined, IDK

How on Earth can a platoon of 20-65 men take out a city of thousands let alone millions? Squads what dream war have you been playing?

Hell 60 modern armour with 240 men couldn't take and hold a large city if it mobilised against them, that takes armed numbers at least 1000 I'd say maybe more depending if it was Londinium or London. I expressed what I thought was a realistic minimum given historical periods.

Are you really that naive? I'll consider a battery unit might number in the 50s but they can't invade cities, or they shouldn't be able to. That is the reason why they can't.

I didn't say Civ V was more realistic just that the way that huge stacks are impossible is more in line with real wars.

I didn't make up numbers I'm just clearly not an idiot, I used my common sense.

If you want to play fantasy war that is fine CIV and CIII caters to you. It's not realistic but I admit in MP particularly it is hellafun.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

the game is realistic in most ways, if you look at it as a whole.
if you split it in tiny pieces, those are not realistic. but thats the same for both games.
so yeah, I will stick to what is fun for me.

 

[Aos Si]

the game is realistic in most ways, if you look at it as a whole.
if you split it in tiny pieces, those are not realistic. but thats the same for both games.
so yeah, I will stick to what is fun for me.

Of course. That's kinda my point, play what you find the most fun and of course there are alternatives if you don't like CiV. The golden rule of gaming is hf.

 

[jjkrause84]

Way to misread what I said I've built multiple stacks of thousands in total in game that is ludicrous. Let's say each unit makes up the standard 1000 men, about 250 Modern armour, that's a million active troops in the field, that is absurd no standing army could be on active duty in those numbers without ruining itself either from starvation or crippling debt in modern times.

This is hilarious. You've basically re-stated the "short war theory" from the years leading up to WWI. "We CAN'T field huge armies for very long because society will collapse!" Well, some societies certainly did, after four years....but it didn't stop France and Germany from pitting 2 million plus men against each other for four years on the Western Front....

 

[Aos Si]

This is hilarious. You've basically re-stated the "short war theory" from the years leading up to WWI. "We CAN'T field huge armies for very long because society will collapse!" Well, some societies certainly did, after four years....but it didn't stop France and Germany from pitting 2 million plus men against each other for four years on the Western Front....

Oh dear WWII was a series of nations not one nation, individually its armies were not that vast, they could not of supported armies that vast say in the order of a million active in the field troops, like you can in CIV. It would help if you paid attention here, I am not claimning 60 nations cannot field vast armies, I am claiming one nation can not.

They didn't have 2 million tropps in the field all at once now did they. They had maybe a few hundred thousand in action at any one time. The only time Germany fielded large armies in attacks was in Blitzkrieg operations which succeeded because of speed, when it had large numbers of troops in the field for extended periods of time it was often crippling in terms of attrition, just as it is with most armies.

And yes after four years many nations were bankrupted, Germany was again screwed, The English Empire collapsed. Do you have any other ideas that reinforce my point?

Next.

I have one singular point it is unrealistic to keep vast armies in the theatre of combat for extended periods of time. That is the point. That is historically true as anyone who's played any sort of remotely realistic strategy combat simulation will tell you.

Arm chair generalling is fun.

"Never fight a land war in Asia."

Patton.

"Two things are of primary importance in a sustained campaign, the lines of supply and morale. Keep the lines of supply intact though and all things being equal, morale should take care of itself."

Me just then.

 

[jjkrause84]

Oh dear WWII was a series of nations not one nation, individually its armies were not that vast, they could not of supported armies that vast say in the order of a million active in the field troops, like you can in CIV. It would help if you paid attention here, I am not claimning 60 nations cannot field vast armies, I am claiming one nation can not.

They didn't have 2 million tropps in the field all at once now did they. They had maybe a few hundred thousand in action at any one time. The only time Germany fielded large armies in attacks was in Blitzkrieg operations which succeeded because of speed, when it had large numbers of troops in the field for extended periods of time it was often crippling in terms of attrition, just as it is with most armies.

First and foremost, I'm talking about WWI, not WWII. Secondly, France and Germany both mobilized over 2 million men in August 1914, and retained that number for four years. That is in the field, all at once. The US, by 1918, would also have 2 million men 'in the colours' and were set to expand even more in 1919. The fact that such forces (the French and German, that is) could be kept in the field for four years of hard fighting is a true testament to the finance and industry of Europe at the time.

Heck, if you wanna go to WWII, Germany invaded Russia in 1941 with 3 million men in addition to 500,000+ soldiers from Allied nations and 600,000 horses.

I do not understand where it is you are getting your historical data. If you would like me to suggest some reading I would be very happy to do so.

- Dr. Krause

 

[Johan de Witt]

While I do agree with most that Aos Si is saying, I feel the need to correct him here.
China has 2,285,000 active troops in peacetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army. It has been found that a nation can field around 60% of its population and still not cripple its economy.

But that's all besides the point of this topic. In my opinion, the OP was just looking for confirmation that the game sucks. Civ 5 is a sequal, which means people have certain expectations and they will be disappointed when the new game in line doesn't give them what they want. That's normal, but what really annoys me is that people state their opinions as facts. Things like "The vast majority of players hate this game" and "The combat system just sucks" are common on these forums. If you do not like this game, stick to Civ 4 and post on that forum about how wonderful the game is. Some of us do enjoy Civ 5 for what it is.

I don't think any Civ game is realistic nor do I think they ever intended them to be.

The OP came for some help and in the meantime stated that he is moving back to Civ 4. Ok... Good luck there mate! Civ 5 isn't a religion so we haven't lost a soul. Just play whatever game you enjoy most.

 

[Disgustipated]

As for difficulty even the mid levels can be hard for me (in terms of getting the highest score). The AI in this game can really expand. they settle anywhere, and everywhere. I'm convinced the ai cheats even on prince. How can they handle the unhappiness? I still struggle with unhappiness and gold income. I can't just expand wherever I want. So the ai will have a higher score than me, but I can still win.

 

[JohnnyW]

Is it more fun? Probably not, is it more realistic: of course.

You're right. civ5 is not more fun, but you are wrong that it is more realistic. That is, unless you think only 2 people can fight in Italy at a time.

Civ 5 isn't a religion so we haven't lost a soul. Just play whatever game you enjoy most.

civ5 certainly isn't a religion and it also has no religion. Coicidence?

 

[Aos Si]

You're right. civ5 is not more fun, but you are wrong that it is more realistic. That is, unless you think only 2 people can fight in Italy at a time.

There aren't 2 people fighting, there are whole armies fighting in a small area of land. If Italy is only two tiles across or in size, and I wouldn't know then yes indeed that is stupid, it's bigger than that and in that circumstance it is stupid. I'm not sure I care that much about it since I never play on Earth maps.

I never said it was I only said that its more realistic than having stupendously large stacks. I have said that twice now I hope this time it sticks?

 

[Aos Si]

While I do agree with most that Aos Si is saying, I feel the need to correct him here.
China has 2,285,000 active troops in peacetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army. It has been found that a nation can field around 60% of its population and still not cripple its economy.

When has a nation ever fielded 60% of its population over an extended period of time and not crippled itself would be a better point. Active and fielded are the contention here, its easy enough to barrack huge armies its harder to maintain lines of supply in enemy territory, hell it aint event hat easy in friendly territory for obvious reasons. And by nation I mean a sizable one, don't point out Lichtenstein we're not talking about that now are we, where the army would barely pack out a decent hotel if it was 60%, we're talking about empire builders really. And yeah ok China has a bigger army fine.

 

[jjkrause84]

For truly massive mobilizations you have to look at South America. I don't know enough about it to give exacy figures or dates, sadly.

 

[Aos Si]

First and foremost, I'm talking about WWI, not WWII. Secondly, France and Germany both mobilized over 2 million men in August 1914, and retained that number for four years. That is in the field, all at once. The US, by 1918, would also have 2 million men 'in the colours' and were set to expand even more in 1919. The fact that such forces (the French and German, that is) could be kept in the field for four years of hard fighting is a true testament to the finance and industry of Europe at the time.

Heck, if you wanna go to WWII, Germany invaded Russia in 1941 with 3 million men in addition to 500,000+ soldiers from Allied nations and 600,000 horses.

I do not understand where it is you are getting your historical data. If you would like me to suggest some reading I would be very happy to do so.

- Dr. Krause

I don't understand why you think fielding millions of troops is sustainable either, We'll have to agree to differ since all the arguments you have fielded about large armies carrying out extended campaigns in the field tended to result in massive attrition and death I feel the point is sound. You don't not my problem, reality bites.

Yeah the German campaign in Russia was a great success and didn't hamper the German war effort, oh good example. So your point is when disastrous extended campaigns go wrong and result in massive unsustainable losses, this is a good example of military strategy and the ease of committing large amounts of troops on extended campaigns? I bet the Germans thought they would be in Moscow in months. Dumbasses didn't learn a lesson from history. Nor did they expect the Russians to remove all chance of supply by burning and destroying their own resources. More fool them whilst the extent to which they went to could not of been estimated (although it is basic strategy 101 to sabotage supplies to stop them falling into enemy hands) 2 things could, that Russia is big and it has very bad winters. Strategic incompetence, over extension of resources and poor understanding of Russian strategy, in an otherwise very competent campaign in many areas.

Hey I was talking about WWII you switched topics to WWI a heads up might of been nice. Still Germany hardly made out like bandits and neither did anyone else and this was trench warfare where they were dug in and the supply lines never moved more than about 200ft a year (please don't google something to find out how far it really moved in a year it was a joke). It's like building a big castle and holing up in it, a comparrison to almost any other war in history is not even apt. Even with static war Germany was eventually crippled by not being able to supply its troops. The war alone had it of continued would of bankrupted it. Germany's empire was screwed, and no one else was laughing all the way to the bank either amongst the dozens of nations. The fact is war is costly and hard to maintain if large numbers are involved.

I bet you wouldn't hesitate to explain the attrition rates in the 100 years war if you were on the other side. This idea that you can field colossal armies over great distances and extended periods of time to establish great empires is a nonsense. Rome wasn't built in a day now was it. Resources are finite as are men and their all to human frailties a big factor in attrition. Why did Caesar lose against the Britons and Roman generals in Germania, why did Persia lose in Greece? Why did Carthage almost sack Rome and defeat the greatest empire in history. why did it eventually lose? How did The Mongols establish such a large empire and how did it lose it? How did the English build the largest Empire in history and how did it lose it? Why not look at some real history..? The answers are always in over extending your resources and men and attrition. It is a simple lesson, war on a large scale as history shows, is best done in small increments, not large sustained military conflicts unless they are very quick and very decisive. That is realistic, history shows this.

 

[Michl2602]

not to mention that this 60% will envolve many women, cause I estimate that roughly 50% of the "men" are too young or too old to be fielded ...