Hey all
After playing SIX hours straight on my first day with the game (and being tired as heck at work and in the doghouse with the wife as a result) i think ive got a feel for what vanilla civ 5 is about.
Id read all sorts of awful things about it so wasnt sure id like it at all.
But, its pretty good!!!
Things i like
a) The graphics- considering my machine i got this working fine on high settings, a pleasant surprise!. It does look better than civ iv
b) The interface is growing on me fast. I still struggle to find some info but im getting there
c) Bombardment, ranged units- much more options as a result, with potential for more tactics.
d) Social policies.. i like the theme, though i did like civics
e) Bigger BFC as city influence spreads, it never made sense that every city regardless of influence had the same number of tiles (border popping peaked very early on 4)
f) Tech trading was the most absurd default setting on civ iv, the idea that you can research an obscure tech such as aesthetics, then advance a thousand years in one turn always annoyed me ..i was glad as heck when i found out you could disable it.
Things i dont get
a) Buying tiles- who am i buying them from??? It feels a tad gamey.
b) Speed- i appreciate that im not playing on a high end machine, i expected maybe graphics problems ..but the graphical scrolling is fine!. The time between turns though is incredibly slow from 100 turns or so in... when the complexity doesnt seem to have increased, im playing small maps, and time seems like 'huge maps on BTS'
c) Resources- improving your resources (not just strategic or luxury) was a major part of civ.. you had the trade offs, workers or troops.. the resources seem far more generic now to me.
Things im unsure about
a) 1UPT- i wasnt a fan of sod particularly , although it was better than people say imho with stack composition important, and unit counters etc. I can see compromises that have been made to accomodate it though and it can get annoying trying to get those units into place, id have loved armies myself?
b) Limited resources, like the idea in principle, in reality i secured 3 sources of iron..it was gone after 4 SOTL and 3 swordsmen. I cant help feeling it was implemented because of 1UPT.
c) The BIGGEST annoyance with previous civs was map generation, your start was the single biggest factor in your success..one game you would start with 3 x gold, 2 x good food, and maybee stone too.. the next game you would be in the ice with a couple of beaver..it seems this is exactly the same really...
But, it is definitely better than expected, and will be getting g&k
After playing SIX hours straight on my first day with the game (and being tired as heck at work and in the doghouse with the wife as a result) i think ive got a feel for what vanilla civ 5 is about.
Id read all sorts of awful things about it so wasnt sure id like it at all.
But, its pretty good!!!
Things i like
a) The graphics- considering my machine i got this working fine on high settings, a pleasant surprise!. It does look better than civ iv
b) The interface is growing on me fast. I still struggle to find some info but im getting there
c) Bombardment, ranged units- much more options as a result, with potential for more tactics.
d) Social policies.. i like the theme, though i did like civics
e) Bigger BFC as city influence spreads, it never made sense that every city regardless of influence had the same number of tiles (border popping peaked very early on 4)
f) Tech trading was the most absurd default setting on civ iv, the idea that you can research an obscure tech such as aesthetics, then advance a thousand years in one turn always annoyed me ..i was glad as heck when i found out you could disable it.
Things i dont get
a) Buying tiles- who am i buying them from??? It feels a tad gamey.
b) Speed- i appreciate that im not playing on a high end machine, i expected maybe graphics problems ..but the graphical scrolling is fine!. The time between turns though is incredibly slow from 100 turns or so in... when the complexity doesnt seem to have increased, im playing small maps, and time seems like 'huge maps on BTS'
c) Resources- improving your resources (not just strategic or luxury) was a major part of civ.. you had the trade offs, workers or troops.. the resources seem far more generic now to me.
Things im unsure about
a) 1UPT- i wasnt a fan of sod particularly , although it was better than people say imho with stack composition important, and unit counters etc. I can see compromises that have been made to accomodate it though and it can get annoying trying to get those units into place, id have loved armies myself?
b) Limited resources, like the idea in principle, in reality i secured 3 sources of iron..it was gone after 4 SOTL and 3 swordsmen. I cant help feeling it was implemented because of 1UPT.
c) The BIGGEST annoyance with previous civs was map generation, your start was the single biggest factor in your success..one game you would start with 3 x gold, 2 x good food, and maybee stone too.. the next game you would be in the ice with a couple of beaver..it seems this is exactly the same really...
But, it is definitely better than expected, and will be getting g&k
, I still like Attila being Attila, and Gandhi being Gandhi ^^
