ciV combat system rocks!

CiV is a lot better than cIV, but amphibious invasions are a joke. If you have your own continent, you'll pretty much be free from invasion for the entire game. I don't think the computer knows how to handle amphibious invasion on 1upt.
 
CiV is a lot better than cIV, but amphibious invasions are a joke. If you have your own continent, you'll pretty much be free from invasion for the entire game. I don't think the computer knows how to handle amphibious invasion on 1upt.

It never really could handle amphibious invasions. Hell I myself can barely handle them.
 
Currently Im playing game as Arabs and been fighting the Romans for most of the game - approx 200 turns so far. I am bit behind in tech - its mainly my swordsman + crossbows vs long-swordsman and muskets.

The only reason why I am able to hold back superior Roman force is what I believe smart use of terrain and knowing when to retreat in order to force Romans to come out into terrain that favours me. This strategy was quire rewarding, however, Romans had at least 4 horses and I did not have any. The AI failed to build all but 1 horse which I took care of with combined attack of 2 crossbows + swordsman.

So while the AI combat skills have improved after the patch, it still has some way to go...
 
I Agree, but I think you have to wait a long time before you will see some mayor changes because the next patch is focust on Dimplomacy rather then Warfare...
 
I Agree, but I think you have to wait a long time before you will see some mayor changes because the next patch is focust on Dimplomacy rather then Warfare...

The best way to improve warfare right now is to improve the AI. And the next patch priorities are diplomacy and AI.
 
The combat system is a lot more fun since the first major patch, and hopefully it will be even more fun after this one.

I had a recent game - Emperor difficulty (playing down slightly for me, Immortal is about the right balance, Deity I can win but it's like 25% win rate or something, Emperor it's probably around 80-90% win rate) as Alexander. English to the north, Romans to the south. Fought a small war against the English using a group of 2 companion cavalry, 3 hoplites, a swordsman and a great general - I had the double xp policy from Honor and the +15% if there's a friendly unit adjacent, so they quickly became very elite and I won the war pretty handily, taking most of the outer reaches of their empire, but they had a series of narrow chokepoints to get through if I wanted to take London and their other remaining city. Accepted a favorable peace agreement and consolidated my gains.

I then fought a minor war with Rome (they were attacking a City-State I had allied with, so I crushed their expeditionary force and took a city as spoils, but I didn't really have the interest to press the attack too far). At that point, I was boxed in between England and Rome with little further land to colonize. Rome was strong, England was weak, so taking over Rome was the eventual goal but I didn't want England attacking me while I was engaged with Rome, so I turned on England. Turned out they had about 8-10 Longbows behind that narrow pass, and I was just feeding my men into a meat grinder. Lost every significantly veteran unit I possessed before ultimately punching through with just waves of newly produced Longswordsmen and siege weapons.

I thought it was pretty cool having the terrain favor the defender in that case so heavily, and having to fight a war that went very atypically because the defender had appropriate units to defend its ground. In Civ IV this would have just been a stack of doom taking down the capital of a mostly-defeated neighbor; in Civ V it was much more than that, enough that I considered letting England survive simply because they had put up such a valiant defense.
 
Top Bottom