Discussion in 'Civ5 - Stories & Let's Plays' started by lemmy101, Sep 21, 2010.
I had more fun reading this than going through the tutorials.
Oh yeah for sure. I'm pretty sure in another game Bismark would perhaps be the leader, but for whatever reason in these history books he was a big big silly.
Oh that's right, teching is based off population mainly now. Probably why China with its huge population is ahead in the tech game (I'm assuming, based off score, that China is the one with the 13 million population, and also the first in tech)
yeah and by stuffing all my citizens into libraries for all the early years to get some scientists, I pretty much screwed my population over and stunted my growth from then on in. I got the tech lead to get Riflemen, but I neglected my economy so much that it was about another 500 years before I managed to pull my economy out the gutter enough to actually be able to support a rifleman army.
And yup, that be China with green on the demographics.
Heh, I think I am gonna win mine when I get back to it. But mines no normal speed so 250 turns to go. Washington is technically the leader, but I'm better at battle then he is. So even though I am a few turns behind him on bringing out new military techs I'm 4 turns from upgrading all my xbows and knights to riflemen. Then There won't be anyone left to kill but the Iroquois. Who ironically enough, had the Americas all to themselves....well them and a few city states, but I believe they have conquered several of those over there.
**edit: and your right Babylon is insane for teching if you do it right. Washington is only ahead of me cause the bugger has tons of gold and kept doing tech pacts with people....I need to work on my gold side of the economy more I guess.
I have enjoyed reading this a lot. Enough to have my account details emailed to me so I could log in and post to say so. Also, this has convinced me to buy Civ5 when it comes out here on Friday, despite my graphics card being only an 8600M GT. It seems that folks are getting the game to run on 8200M GS, so I'll give it a go.
I think this may end up being my favorite iteration of Civ based on what I've read here. Civ4 was sort of like the ultimate version of what the game had been up to then, so I'm glad they've tried something a bit different here. 1UPT and hexes seem great, and the removal of the science slider seems like a masterstroke as well. There is nothing strategic about the slider when having it as high as you can afford is nearly always the dominant choice. Stuff like that just makes the game look more strategic. It looks like they've trimmed that kind of fat, and upped the focus on what is left. I can really say that I can't wait, whereas just a couple of days ago CiV was barely on my radar - it was all Fallout: NV.
Hay lemmy, great thread!
What comp do you have and is the game smooth? I have a core 2 duo and it suggests a quad core for recommended gameplay... so I'm a little concerned about that aspect of it.
Some thoughts so far:
War - The 1UPT is great. The hexes are great. The difference is amazing and it makes me look forward to wars instead of them feeling like a necessary burden. In Civ 4 I avoided war unless I really really had to. I never played the militaristic game purely because it wasn't as fun as the peacetime activities, and I begrudged having to divert all my cities to producing units when they could be building lovely empire improving buildings or wonders.
This time round it feels like the combat aspects of the game are woven into everything, just as money, science and everything else. Even when at peace I'd see Bismark's troops milling about on my borders, lining up, rearranging themselves. Snooping close to my cities then running off. I felt like he was scouting me out, looking at what troops I had on show. I'd send up a few units as a show of force, and he'd back off and dissapear into the fog of war. I can't begin to describe what a difference this makes. It makes the old stacks of doom seem ridiculous now. Don't get me wrong, I loved Civ 4 more than any other game in existence, but this is just so many steps forward it's crazy.
Yet it still feels like Civ, the march forward toward their cities, holding back to heal after conquering a city. It all feels reminicent but so much better.
Hexes too. It feels so natural, when you're on a thin one tile width stretch of land, either between water or mountains (in my case water) it feels like a tangable strip of defensible land, and before long you forget about hexes all together and the terrain just works as you would expect. Marvelous.
The combat alone is enough to justify this game's place in Civ history, even if the rest of it was dumbed down or not as good. But I really don't feel it is.
Maintenance - I love the changes here, despite it being one of the things cited as being dumbed down. Too much of my Civ 4 time was spent worrying about distances to my capital and oversea colonies being crazy expensive, yet I would just build whatever buildings I liked in every city. That's a library, uni, observ, lab (regardless of if it's my science city) a market, bank, a barracks. By the end of the game I'd be building units purely because I'd literally built everything else. That's stupid if you think about it because surely what buildings you build in each city should trump city placement in terms of strategy, since it's something you do 10-20-30-40x more often.
This way I can place cities where I like, which is liberating and fun, while I'm instead torn by what I should build in those cities, or even if I should build anything at all. Often I put them to build science or wealth, not because I needed it (wealth building seems a little lame in this tbh) but because I simply could not afford anything. Just one more granary, or one more rifleman, would push me into defecit and I would risk losing my units and suffer a massive science penalty. In terms of the carrot and the stick this was a big stick making me carefully consider every time I made a building. This made a huge difference to how much satisfaction I got out of city build strategy.
Interesting is how this impacts wonder building. It makes them more of a viable punt. After all, a wonder doesn't cost maintenence. So if my economy is screwed, and I can't afford a building or unit, then building a wonder is a good option, since if I lose out to a rival I get some money, and after all I shouldn't have been building anything else anyway.
I should add that a lot of these realisations come from the challenge I faced. I imagine if I played on Warlord or Chieftain I may not have appreciated this, since I'd likely have not had to make the painful agonizing choices of what or if to build.
Global happiness / health removed - Another victim in the 'dumbing down' argument. Did we really need two independent city growth limiting factors? Three if you include food? Both happiness and health behaved identically and required the same solutions to fix (albeit different buildings)? So health is gone, we have one limiting factor of growth, happiness, and it has been made global. This has not been simplified. They have turned something that was a soft and unobtrusive cap on population growth of one city and turned it into an empire wide calamity. Now happiness matters massively. Also losing out on the golden ages sucks because golden ages in this are awesome.
Slider removal - Contending for the best change in this game. I had no problem with the sliders in Civ 4. Never thought twice about it. Never even imagined there was another way. But I'm convinced now that they should stay gone forever. In this game I was on negative money for a long time. My science was still good because of my library dudes, but I was just in a money pit and had a real hard time climbing out. In Civ 4 I would have pressed the - button one or two times and just coped with slightly less science for a while, and thought nothing of it. My economy would have been sub-par, but I could have just trundled on happily taking an extra turn or two to research techs.
In this it was a massive factor in the game play. A huge one. I also had happiness problems, and no access to luxuries. I could have solved the happiness problems easily. Just build a couple of Colosseums. Except I simply couldn't. I couldn't afford them. I was just managing to avoid having my troops all disbanded when I needed them the most, so it forced me to address my economy problems as a matter of urgency. Once I sorted them out I didn't just get one turn faster techs, I was finally able to grow my cities, support an army, and build useful buildings.
None of these challenges would have been present if that slider was there.
Also my culture sucked throughout. Imagine I could just set culture to 100% for a few turns every so often? In retrospect it seems cheap and lame.
In all this, please don't think I'm dissing Civ 4. I loved that game so much I can barely describe. But this game is better. Of course other people may feel differently, but feel my experiences so far, which I have recounted somewhat, show that the changes and apparent simplifications and dumbing downs have actually deepened the gameplay in unexpected ways, so while on a checklist you may be able to count X less 'features' and 'gameplay system's the overall strategy is deeper than ever.
Further more I feel this is a much more focused and solid base for mods to be built onto. Civ 4 had so many game systems to deal with that inclusion of a new one in a mod started to get a bit heavy. I'm excited about how mods will extend the game, not to mention expansions.
That is all. Will say more as I continue with this game, which is far from over! Glad you've all enjoyed!
EDIT: It occurs to me I didn't even remember to write up about the removal of religion, which I guess shows how much I care. And I loved religion in Civ 4.
I just spent nearly half an hour reading through all of this thread (instead of studying for an Econ test tomorrow). Thanks TC, it was a great read
I can see your point on most of the things you say there Lemmy, but I am still disappointed by the removal of Health. Yes they should have changed how each one worked-to avoid duplication of effects-but I think this could have been achieved!
I can't help but wonder what a REX + income generating strategy would result in with Civ 5. Lots of cities and lots of gold to build with to boot?
I think it may be a quad, it's certainly good enough I didn't need to worry about the specs....
but I also tried it on my laptop and it works on lower settings pretty solidly on there.
Processor : Intel i3-350M(2.26GHz) Mobile CPU
Graphics Card: 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470
I'd be amazed if that was a quad core, but I have no idea tbh those numbers and letters confuse me.
I think the worst you'll prob have to worry about is having a lower number of civs / city states, or avoiding the bigger map sizes, rather than it not working at all. But who knows it may work perfectly.
A games journo mate of mine said it runs about 10x better in the late game than the review version he got given, so that's encouraging.
Thanks, lemmy101. This thread has sold me on the beauty of clouds; I like the change from black.
It looks magical.
Dual core, with four threads.
This thread is fantastic. I'm currently doing my first playthrough with Rome. Learning from your..er... 'tactical deviances' (Happiness, rushing tech tree, etc.) has helped me a bit. Not to mention you seem to have the basics down, whereas, Im still struggling. Good for info, and quite entertaining. Thanks!
Hmmm, how does that compare with a Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz?
That sounds fine to me, tbh... a quad will obv help because it's designed to take advantage of multiple cores, but clocking 3.16Ghz is pretty good going regardless of the amount of cores.
Don't quote me on that, but it sounds perfectly fine for running this to me.
The Core 2 Duo E8500 has a faster clock speed and a larger cache (6mb vs 3mb), but only two threads.
I don't know how important 4 vs. 2 threads is for Civ5.
Cool thanks for the info.
Whew, back from my own Civilization V adventure that has eaten up all of my free time today. I must say I share many of the opinions you have about the virtues of Civ V. I've been making my own numerous shares of mistakes in my game as Rome, but luckily my economy's doing well (I'm a HUGE goldmonger, so that probably helps).
Words of advice to anyone who wants them: Don't auto your workers if you're expanding quickly. I did that and my capital was left almost barren while my workers traipsed off to the periphery of my empire.
DON'T FORGET ABOUT CULTURE. I didn't pay much attention to it and now in 130-ish AD I've got many different cities that are all small culturally.
Be wary of the small civilizations, the ones that only expand to about three cities. They may seem harmless, but Ramesess has been jacking wonders right out from under my nose. I'd conquer him right away if my army wasn't kind of screwy (entirely made out of melee troops with no siege or archery capability) and if he wasn't on the other side of the continent.
I'm enjoying the playthrough, lemmy. Can't wait to see how it all ends.
Separate names with a comma.