Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Baron2, Jul 12, 2013.
by ''gameplay'', I don't mean the engine, I mean the game itself.
Like, one taking longer to build NC, reaching Industrial, stuff like that? If so, I agree, although I've played only three games so far.
Yes, everything is slower. Low amount of early game gold + tech cost increase with # of cities made the game slower overall. I think that was Firaxis' intention with the xpac...
I think it might be a little.
I finished my first prince game (Venice, standard size & speed) in 1999 with a Diplomatic victory (EZ-PZ) but while I was the tech leader through the game the tech parity was very close. I don't remember the last time I played a prince game that took so long and I was not even close to finishing the tech tree. In previous games that I played which lasted so long, I would have normally been into future tech by that time.
One sacrifices many GS for so many MoV that are puppet-produced.
Overall, I was very surprised that my tech was so low after such a long game. So it would seem to me that the game is 'slower' as OP described.
It does seem a little slower to me too. I thought it was because I was spending more time analyzing my course of action with the new, unfamiliar mechanics.
It's not just you. I've noticed that BNW actually, contrary to what reviewers are saying, is much slower and more tedious than gods and kings was.
You can't buy settlers anymore and actually have to prepare the economy if you want to upgrade your units. At least that's what I've noticed.
Settlers are 500g as always unless you are playing as Venice.
There are more important things to be spending 500g on in the later part of the game than a settler and unless you get really lucky or are playing a civ with gold benefits, you won't be able to time the settler very well for your victory. It has to do with gold constraints.
I think the game takes a lot longer to play. I noticed it with G&K too, but it got even slower with BNW. I think part of it is that vanilla was so simple there wasn't much to do. Vanilla had a few basic buildings and units, it was easy to manage the economy, and it was mostly a game of building many units and attacking other civs. Now, there is so much more to do. There is religion, trade routes, tourism, world congress, espionage, and much more depth in many other areas. Because of the increased depth, more strategy, planning and management is needed. This increases the average length of turns, which makes the game longer to play from start to finish.
I like the longer game time. With the multitude of new features I feel like I'm actually building up an authentic civilization from the ground up. In Gods and Kings I played to win by certain turn limits and in certain ways, like a numbers game, but in Brave New World I play to create a civilization that pleases me, like a narrative. I play on lower difficulties in it for the time being. Gods and King was about the destination, but Brave New World is about the journey.
All my last games took lasted beyond turn 300.
So, yeah, BNW gameplay is a lot slower. But I must say I like the change. Also noticed a lot less "runaway" civs.
Yup, mine used to end 250-290 but now it seems to be around 320-350 before someone wins on standard. It's just the beginning slowed down so much it really delays the end. (no gold to buy settlers, new science penalty, ect)
Separate names with a comma.