All this is said many times already, but tech trading could only got you on a par (at best) while Research Agreement throws you miles ahead of everyone else. If tech trading really was as exploitable as some claim, there would have been much more regular Deity-beaters.
hooked gamers preview
- Thread starter snipperrabbit!!
- Start date
All this is said many times already, but tech trading could only got you on a par (at best) while Research Agreement throws you miles ahead of everyone else. If tech trading really was as exploitable as some claim, there would have been much more regular Deity-beaters.
I don't think there's much realpolitik in CIVs diplomatic model. AI civs don't act rationally for there own good but rather completely irrationally. They can for instance declare war while fighting two wars already against equally strong civs. The goal of the diplo model probably was just to make it unpredictable for the player.
Learned a lot from Madjinn's Let's Play videos, so lots of respect for his skills. But must disagree with him on this one.
The sad fact is that Civ V NEEDS this expansion in order to keep it interesting, whicle Civ IV is interesting in every game as a result of its design. It's the new things in the expansion that are drawing us in. But if you look at Civ IV, each game was interesting in and of itself because the terrain, opposing civs, your cities, luxuries, health, etc., changed with each game. You could rework your civics over time, allowing more decisions on every turn than Civ V offers. Civ V is, in many ways, a simplier game once mastered. It has a solution, and once you figure out that solution, you implement it in each game you play. You get a little better each time, but once you've learned a step in that solution, you keep using it over and over in each game.
I just feel like I "finished" Civ V at some point earlier this year. I never said that about the previous four iterations of the game.
Think about the leaders in Civ IV vs. Civ V. While some were better (or easier) in Civ IV than others, each one had a set of skills and starting techs that fundamentally changed the game you played with them. In civ V, the path for a science victory is always the same for every leader, its just that some (Babylon) are better than others (Ottomans) in reaching that goal. Playing with a good leader in Civ V makes the game less interesting because it is easier (double luxuries for Arabs). Playing with a good leader in Civ IV was fantastic because you had real, fundamental, every turn options that were different.
I recall one point in Civ IV where I was playing on the world map and set up a city where Baghdad is. recall it has limited production and lots of river tiles. After playing that game for years, I tried building a city focusing on cottages and converting that into specialists and discovered a whole new successful strategy for a city. That just could not happen in Civ V.
Sad.
The sad fact is that Civ V NEEDS this expansion in order to keep it interesting, whicle Civ IV is interesting in every game as a result of its design. It's the new things in the expansion that are drawing us in. But if you look at Civ IV, each game was interesting in and of itself because the terrain, opposing civs, your cities, luxuries, health, etc., changed with each game. You could rework your civics over time, allowing more decisions on every turn than Civ V offers. Civ V is, in many ways, a simplier game once mastered. It has a solution, and once you figure out that solution, you implement it in each game you play. You get a little better each time, but once you've learned a step in that solution, you keep using it over and over in each game.
I just feel like I "finished" Civ V at some point earlier this year. I never said that about the previous four iterations of the game.
Think about the leaders in Civ IV vs. Civ V. While some were better (or easier) in Civ IV than others, each one had a set of skills and starting techs that fundamentally changed the game you played with them. In civ V, the path for a science victory is always the same for every leader, its just that some (Babylon) are better than others (Ottomans) in reaching that goal. Playing with a good leader in Civ V makes the game less interesting because it is easier (double luxuries for Arabs). Playing with a good leader in Civ IV was fantastic because you had real, fundamental, every turn options that were different.
I recall one point in Civ IV where I was playing on the world map and set up a city where Baghdad is. recall it has limited production and lots of river tiles. After playing that game for years, I tried building a city focusing on cottages and converting that into specialists and discovered a whole new successful strategy for a city. That just could not happen in Civ V.
Sad.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Amen dowd... the games are reptitive in Civ V.. once you have a certain set of stragety, you just keep re-using, and re-using it... and even as you advance higher up the difficulty, you still achieve the same thing.
For example. I have a set of techs that I go for each victory.
Pottery > Writing (Science) - Great Library
Pottery > Calendar (Cultural) - Stonehenge
Mining > Bronze Working (Domination) - Statue of Zeus
and for Diplomatic I don't really have one.. if I start nearby enough Stone/Masonry I go for the Mauseloum.
I miss the Apostolic Palace, the Resolutions, the Random Events, I think that's what missing from this game to make it as good as Civ 4 was for me.. th eonly reason why I still play Civ 5 is because of the 1 per tile and how easy it made combat for me.
Now, we're actually dereailing this poor thread!
For example. I have a set of techs that I go for each victory.
Pottery > Writing (Science) - Great Library
Pottery > Calendar (Cultural) - Stonehenge
Mining > Bronze Working (Domination) - Statue of Zeus
and for Diplomatic I don't really have one.. if I start nearby enough Stone/Masonry I go for the Mauseloum.
I miss the Apostolic Palace, the Resolutions, the Random Events, I think that's what missing from this game to make it as good as Civ 4 was for me.. th eonly reason why I still play Civ 5 is because of the 1 per tile and how easy it made combat for me.
Now, we're actually dereailing this poor thread!
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
I don't disagree with you that the game 'needs' the expansion. There is a lot about the game that can be made a lot better. But You might be confusing BtS level Civ 4 with Civ 4 vanilla (or Warlords for that matter).
Civ 4 vanilla was a bit of a train wreck. We all know it.
Peng Qi
Emperor
I think you're unfairly comparing BTS to vanilla Civ V as people often do. Vanilla Civ IV was actually very static; I actually became bored playing it and had gone back to Civ II for a little while. Once the expansions came out it became interesting again.
CiV will become more interesting as well. The foundation is set and worked out. 1UPT, SPs, culture, happiness etc. Now it is time for the game to evolve and grow, just like CiIV did.
In CiIV vanilla AI was horrible. There was too much unit clutter, no dreaded SoD. Many hate SoD, but at least with BTS there was unit cohesion and combined arms, the AI did come to get you.
I remember in my 1862 mod playing on my world map as Morrocco. China DoWed me and marched 3 huge SoD armies to attack me, all the way from its home territory. Now that is some serious resolve. I was very nearly overrun and held out in Fez, until my African cities built up enough, to beat the Chinese back. That was a crazy occurrence and I could not believe my eyes. This rat fink comes stomping all the way from Asia, down to the Middle East and marches across Northern Africa. Unbelievable! To me that game was incredibly fun, if it had hexes, I'd be playing it right now.
CiV will come along and be just as fun.
Similar threads
