Civilization 5 Rants Thread

It is that the AI is the hugest hypocrite ever and gets their panties in a bunch for going wide. I don't think that all the nerfing to wide civs, science, culture, unhappiness, make wide empires worst than the 4 city tradition this game wanted to shove down our throats. Instead the true deathknell to wide empires is how the ai overestimates their power so they gang up on you when I go wide. "They think you are settling cities too aggressively" seems to be one of the biggest and potent negative modifiers. I see Ais flip from "friendly" to denounce, to war, within 10 turns EVERY TIME I see that modifier go up. I don't see the AI gang up on me very often when I'm 5 or 6 city tradition but good god do they hate it when I'm wide. The AI is built to not see the danger in a much stronger tall empire.
 
If your empire is larger and has a more powerful army then I, the normal way of approach would be to be cautious but not to attack, minding the clear military disadvantage I'm in. This should be AI's approach in such circumstance, the only way AI should attack you when your empire is larger and has more military units than theirs is by allying with other AI tribe(s) to attack you together.
This obviously only intelligent strategy in such a case is pretty much the way the game is setup, right?
 
Yea, but my point is that they don't let you get to the point of being a strong wide civ. They freak the hell out when you are going wide without realizing how gimped you are by going wide in the first place. It takes time to get strong as a wide player but they feel so threatened by the player when in fact in most circumstances in the games I play, I only have as many cities or less as the ai and an average of 4 less pop. per city and 5+ techs less than the leader, half the army, etc, etc. In my games they act like I'm the run away when I instead have a fragile wide civ- but you are aggressively settling cities. You must die. That's what annoys me. If I was actually strong enough to tag team it would make an interesting game but they just crush me into the dirt when I'm up to my 7th or so city, which I have to make huge sacrifices to get to that point in the first place.

If I were playing tall cultural or science the AI is like like yaaay I love this peace, we'll continue to allow you to breed like rabbits in your tokyoesque megacities and let's trade and give each other research agreements because this way I got to get all the land although you are running away with the game through a science victory. lol.
 
krickets said:
Yea, but my point is that they don't let you get to the point of being a strong wide civ. They freak the hell out when you are going wide without realizing how gimped you are by going wide in the first place. It takes time to get strong as a wide player but they feel so threatened by the player when in fact in most circumstances in the games I play, I only have as many cities or less as the ai and an average of 4 less pop. per city and 5+ techs less than the leader, half the army, etc, etc. In my games they act like I'm the run away when I instead have a fragile wide civ- but you are aggressively settling cities. You must die. That's what annoys me. If I was actually strong enough to tag team it would make an interesting game but they just crush me into the dirt when I'm up to my 7th or so city, which I have to make huge sacrifices to get to that point in the first place.

If I were playing tall cultural or science the AI is like like yaaay I love this peace, we'll continue to allow you to breed like rabbits in your tokyoesque megacities and let's trade and give each other research agreements because this way I got to get all the land although you are running away with the game through a science victory. lol.
Click to expand...


To be honest, it's fairly realistic. Grabbing all the land would make others a bit worried, but nobody's gonna declare war on you because you invented fertilizer or something.
 
Jingo7 said:
By 1900AD only two thirds of the planet is inhabited, there have only ever been 2 wars, global population is stagnant, but the game is working as designed!

Civ5 may well represent the history of a species living on a planet, but it certainly is not humanity.
Click to expand...

Put Hitler on the map. Believe me it helps!
 
Moderator Action: "It isn't even that going wide is worst than going tall" merged with the main rant thread
 
reddishrecue said:
Did you know that Hitler appears in the civilopedia under Germany?
Click to expand...

No I haven't read it. In any case use JFD's Hitler and Mussolini. They love to fight. Even with each other which is pretty comical sometimes.
 
in the long run a wide empire outperforms a tall one, but its weak in the beginning so its a good time to crush it. if you plant cities slowly one by one not in a burst there will be no modifier (as you arent that weaken by expansion)
 
Starships continues the descent.

First Civilization 5, then Civilization 5: Beyond Earth and now Starships.

How low can you go? :sad:
 
Thormodr said:
Starships continues the descent.

First Civilization 5, then Civilization 5: Beyond Earth and now Starships.

How low can you go? :sad:
Click to expand...

I know I'll be sounding like a complaining little brat, but this has to be said.

All this time and resources that could've been spent on updating Civ V...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
CIV 5 Cocoa and Bison
Replies
2
Views
703
Actic_Civ
A
D
Hi gang - it's been awhile 😊
Replies
3
Views
326
raider980
raider980
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Antiquity Age Summary/Tier Lists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
B
Civ 5 is disappointing
Replies
5
Views
4K
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Navelgazer
What are your priorities for Commander Promotions?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
uppi
U
Back
Top Bottom