Curious who only uses CivUp not GEM

ExpiredReign

Deity
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,450
Location
Tasmania
I know it is possible to play with only CivUp but I want to know why people would choose not to also use GEM.

It could be interesting to see some percentages of CivUP vs GEM.

Personally I would prefer the whole package to be integrated but I'm not going to worry that is not.
 
I use both.

And if I understand correctly they will soon be available in a merged packet so as to enable, at least, online multi-player.
 
I just use CivUp and VEM, not GEM. I've heard that with Gods and Kings that happiness is really easy to attain compared to the original vanilla making the game easier. Also, I'm cheap and don't want to shell out $30 for Gods and Kings. I really like the game as is so why mess with a good thing?

I was really disappointed with just vanilla Civ5 after about a month of playing it. Then, I found VEM, which makes the game a lot better. I really appreciate the WWGD part of VEM since it was the AI that was annoying me the most. Vanilla Civ5 is just a war game. Everyone hates everyone all the time. No one can be trusted no matter what.


The rest of the changes in VEM are nice too and make the game more interesting since there are more choices. There's no longer an 'ideal' strategy for winning. I can only think of 2 things that I'd change in VEM. Two units: the Lancer and the Submarine.

Who cares that the Lancer has an additional move more than a Knight or Dragoon? A lot of the time there's rough terrain so it doesn't matter. They are weak on defense. They are weaker than the contemporary Dragoon. They are only really effective if fighting an army of Dragoons in the open field (very rare). The AI can't use them effectively either with their penalties for defense. Give them bonuses that the AI can use too. I'd suggest giving them a sight bonus, the ability to ignore terrain, and the same movement as a Knight or Dragoon. Keep them at 22 strength and get rid of the bonus for attacks and penalties for defense. Then, the unit would be worth building and the AI could use it effectively too. Make it similar to a mounted vanguard unit.

The problem with submarines is that they are too easily spotted. Destroyers have a long sight range. It only takes 1 or 2 Destroyers to patrol a wide area for subs. You can't sneak up on anyone with a sub unless they don't have the tech for Destroyers. I would suggest making them harder to spot. For Triremes, Caravels, Frigates, Ship of the Lines, and Ironclads, you shouldn't be able to see a sub unless you try to directly move on top of it. They'll be practically invisible. A unit like that is worth beelining to get. For Battleships and Carriers (or any other modern ship) they should be able to see subs if they are within 1 tile of one, so directly adjacent to it. For Destroyers, if the sub is within 3 tiles it can be see, not 4 or 5 or whatever the normal sight range is for a Destroyer. I'd even consider making it 2 tiles but that might nerf Destroyers too much. Also, a sub should become visible once it fires, but then after it moves on its next turn it's invisible again. As is, I don't see a reason to build subs other than just the fun of sinking a frigate with one. If the other civ has Destroyers, then they're obsolete. This needs some major re-balancing.
 
@EricB
I just use CivUp and VEM, not GEM.

Since CivUp is part of the VEM package it would be difficult to use either seperately.

What the question is all about is people who choose to not install GEM and their reasons for not doing so.
 
Back
Top Bottom