Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ori, Dec 3, 2010.
... and some say this AI is not good...
i'm new on the forum, 37, dude, french, civ 2 lover, play civ 5 since may, always play Rome and can't beat it on prince level :|
i'm starting to believe that in order to winning you have to micro manage every single concept of the game, ask others to go to war, play tricks with spies, trade every single coin you can earn, buy tiles; all the things i don't do.
i think i'm doing ok at wars (but not more), but i end losing each time on diplomatic or spatial race, when not wipped out by a treacherous coalition.
One exemple : the last game i played, i was first in every aspect but happiness (still in the green though)
i had in Rome :
- National Intelligence Agency
- Angkor Vat
- Terracota Army
- Big Ben
- Christ the redeemer statue
- Circus Maximus
- East India Company
- Great library
- Macchu Picchu
- Brandeburg gate
- Zeus statue
- Globe Theatre
- Eiffel tower
- Porcelain tower
- Leaning tower of Pisa
- + others like epics, factory
But around 2035 another civ got the diplomatic win, even though i reloaded one time and managed to take his capital, thinking it would be enough to stop him... well, not at all, he manages to stay in the race and actually wins it being elected world leader.
I understand i have to take each and every city of him. But what next ? I tell you, the last civ on stats will come up with a spaceship and win the space race.
If you add Balkoth on Steam (this is me: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198003305245 ) I'd be happy to play some co-op games with you in order to help.
On Deity, somewhat. On any other difficulty, nope, it's not micromanagement that's the issue.
Thanks for your help
I checked rezoacken's channel, the last videos are perfect cause he plays Rome.
LordBalkoth i added you in my friends list, thanks for you offer
Moderator Action: Rant Thread merged into the main rants thread
Here's my rant (and this is the first time I've come across this).
The way shifting allies of city states affects who is at war with who, which affects your defensive pacts with your allies. Right now every single turn, and I mean Every. Single. Turn. I am having to renew my defensive pacts with Ethiopia and Mongolia, because all the AI's are constantly buying out each others city state allies.
It's driving me mad. Not to mention the one turn where I forgot to do it, and Sweden's DP with me also ran out, Sweden decided to backstab me after 2000 years of peace.....
While the ability to run multiple mods is nice, why on earth should I have to spend 30 seconds reloading mods every time I quit to main menu? I like keeping all options random, so often end up reloading if I don't like the civ/start.
Speaking of which, why is there no regenerate map option It amuses me how they could miss out on something so simple that the previous iteration of the game had.
sooooo, first of all, thanks LordBalkoth and sorry for having been quite silent since our unfinished game : i was trying and trying again to beat the game at prince level, and then i just managed yesterday to do so for the first time
there were quite a lot of games whichi would lose with best stats...
this time, i won, and i don't even which way of winning i achieved.
Was it cultural ? I don't know, i guess so
this is how it looked near the end game :
I also had tons of wonders, of which Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, Globe theater, hanging garden, pyramids, Oxford uni, Petra, The Christ redemptor, Big Ben and Hubble
i had to kill mongols and ottomans, and took over egyptians; wars take quite a lot of turns, would u admit? i didn't lose any city, i think i've been quite efficient, now, how would i have overcome overseas civilizations? is that even possible with such a map?
How come, by winning every war, i'm in such a position that i dont have time to conquer every other civ, and even with specialists i can't boost my research to catch up with the required tech to win the space race?
why am i in such a bad winning position??
this game is damn difficult! or is my way of playing just wrong?
Hi, i come back, hope i didn't sound rude or... pretentious or... i don't have the words, but...
i didn't play since then, i don't feel like; i think my problem with this game is that i want a good wining situation
I want to grow a strong civ, dominating in most ways when that makes sense, not all the time, not even often, but 1 in 20 times for example :|
i want it EASY after it has been DIFFICULT, i mean : you struggle, you have a bit or a lot of luck, but then, as long as you passed it, ok, you can create a huge gap between the AI and your civ.
but it seems the game doesn't work like that
It's more like.. almost in the algorithms, you HAVE to sacrifice some aspects : war, culture, tourism, science, demography... economics... it's like you can't dominate on 2 or more main domains
so you have to make your choice in the beginning, early enough, take advantage of the map, and EVEN IF you manage to conquer neighbours, have a ton of money, well... the IA WILL have better science, or better armies, or better culture
If it requires the IA to be able to surpass your science with less cities, less schools etc, it will.
Take over one of your neighbours, and on another continent an IA will have taken two of her.
I can't accept this tacit rule, i want to build wonders, have the best science if i deserve it, have the best army if i deserve it, and get rich if i deserve it
The game i posted earlier was kind of "rewarding" : i managed to conquier almost 3 civ, but also did a lot for my science level, took risks, and took care of the culture, because i WANTED one, it's not because i won wars that i should end up with a culturally dying civ.
The IA of course backstabed me as often they could, bringing out their "you lose" joker card. "you lose cause u see, i expanded like crazy", "you lose, cause i make war on you", "you lose... because... because basically i want you to win not ^-^ ooops, what ? not happy with that? Well, check dat, you lose because <snip>, is that a sufficient reason to you?"
PS: Sorry for the mess with the smileys :x and the bad word :x :x
Moderator Action: Please help keep the forums family friendly. Offending phrase snipped.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
The worst civ game ever
Boredom - Mentally I think about Civ V as press next turn simulator, the so famed tech strategies are about what? build a scout and that's the whole fun you will have for 300 turns, to scout the area, while you have the exciting mission of building stuff in your capital and 1 or 2 cities every 20 turns, and then you build other scientific building until game is done just pressing next turn until spaceship is built.
Grotesque diplomacy - Oh, you want something different from tech win? Let's try military stuff? Let's see.
When Spain destroyed the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans, every country in Europe declared war on Isabella. After all, they feared she would bring another dark age to the world right? Eh, no. But in Civ V if you conquer 2 or 3 cities that will happen to you if you dare to be an expansive warmonger.
Strongest or Weakest - AKA Unique Abilities, Attila, Isabella, Harald, you know what I mean...
I could go on but i'm bored and tired, let's just bash this abomination, praise civ iv and hope civ vi will not have those gimmicks from civ v
Moderator Action: Merged to Civ V Rants Thread
ahhh memories. I hated this game quite a bit when it came out. Couldn't stand 1 UPT. The expansions, especially the second one, really made this game good. 1 UPT has grown on my a bit, still a pita to move an entire army any reasonable distance. So it really decreases my desire for conquest victories.
Civ VI is totally crushing Civilization 5 and it will only get worse as time goes on when the expansions are released and a full roster of Civs is released.
Civ VI: Rise and Fall looks to add some interesting game mechanics and flesh out an already almost full featured game already.
I recently played a few Civ VI games and I can't agree that it's "crushing" anything in its current state. It's still poorly paced and buggy as hell, and the late game is a total mess. I look hopefully forward to the expansion, but so far I've found Civ VI to be very disappointing.
Can’t agree with you there. While Civ VI has it’s rough edges, It has so, so, so much more to offer.
Civilization 5 was an unmitigated disaster that only was rescued by the community with Vox Populi. Civ VI is fun to play, as imperfect as it is, even before its first expansion.
Civilization 5 was an absolute dud for about 5 years or so. Civ VI is already great.
Anyway, hope the expansion brings you around.
I agree, this is very annoying and it seems unnecessary. What is the point of loading (is it unloading?) again to quit to main menu.
You can't cancel trade agreements. I found this out today, because it never crossed my mind that such a basic feature would be left out of an otherwise fine and enjoyable game. Really, Firaxis?
Oh and Domination is dumb and a step down from Civ4. It's basically impossible on larger map modes.
Otherwise I love V, but these two things stand out.
why is cancelling trade agreements so vital? i like that it's committal
i have to actually think about whether or not i want someone walking through my borders rather than just cancelling it when the missionaries come over the horizon
Now that Civ VI has added its expansion, Rise and Fall, Civilization 5 looks even worse in comparison.
Civ VI is so much more immersive and with so many interesting game decisions.
The only downside is that Civ VI retained the horrendous 1UPT. Still the worst design decision made in Civ history.
Separate names with a comma.