It doesn't sound like an exploit to me - just an alternative strategy that I guess optimizes for land-grabbing rather than anything else. I'm having a hard time imagining it being a viable strategy later in the game, though...
It doesn't feel like I'm building a civilization
- Thread starter Falk
- Start date
It doesn't sound like an exploit to me - just an alternative strategy that I guess optimizes for land-grabbing rather than anything else. I'm having a hard time imagining it being a viable strategy later in the game, though...
Well - the war thing, I kind of see... You cannot go on a conquest spree because of the Unhappy hit - you set objectives, take a few cities, then either sign a peace treaty or raze like crazy...
It's actually another thing I think they (poorly) swiped from Paradox -- that was the big thing in EU3, you got badboy hits the more provinces you took, so big, huge wars of conquest were awfully tough to do unless you were prepared to deal with the consequences.
My big problem with this, though --- it's such a rote, boring path to deal with conquest unhappiness... build a courthouse.... build a courthouse.... build a courthouse.... Boring. This is where the decision to eliminate religion really hurts in my mind -- in IV, you had many different options for dealing with conquest unhappiness. You could switch civics... You could sign a peace treat.... if it fit with your state religion, you had a ton of religious options... you could convert the city TO your religion.
Most wars, I found, in Civ IV were basically "battle till one of us is gone" -- V does limit that, which I like.
But - I do agree - the way around it is to just raze like crazy... maybe you keep one or two cities that have sweet resources already worked, but it's a really hack way around the fundamental problem.
For now I agree with these. In none of my games (or starts to be precise) has my empire really looked like an empire - it's always been few scattered cities with lots of neutral ground in between. There's a chance I'm just doing it wrong but until I see a change in my games I agree.
When combined with the increased speed of units, reduced number of units needed, slow city growth rate and slow city border expansion the empires seem bound to be scattered across without any sense of unity.
Here I both agree and disagree. Even though at times there are starts where luxury resources are too monotonous I do like the idea of making them more local. It encourages trading and diplomacy (or it would if diplomacy wasn't that bad at the moment). On the other hand I completely agree than resources themselves are far too similar. With reduction of yields and removal of health there just aren't ways to make them differ anymore.
Fully agree. If I want random opponents who don't care about diplomacy I can always play MP. AI leaders need more refined personalities even at the cost of efficiency.
Yes. Biggest flaw is that they don't allow chance of policies during the game. There's just no sense to have any empire to be stuck with political decisions made thousands of years ago.
Still undecided about this. In a sense the sliders were too accurate tools so I don't think the removal is inherently bad. It just depends if there's sufficient control left through other means - a thing I can't yet say.
Somewhat agree. Considering how strong they've been made the system is too simplistic. Also it seems wrong that dealings with minor powers like CS's seems more important than politics with other civilizations.
Majority of wonders are a bit lame. They take too long to build for the effects they do. Also the natural wonders are even more lame - why do they all have exactly the same effect?
Yes. As much as I hate religion in real life I feel it's been a major factor in human history so it's terrible it was cut from the game. Civ4 religions system was simplistic but still much better than no religion at all. Instead of dropping I wish they'd have improved it.
Not that I can tell -- in fact, since I usually play as Egypt (Egypt's special building is a free/no maintenance happy/culture tomb) -- it actually enhances it. I sort of get into a bit of a lull around 10 cities -- but then, when the burial tombs start cranking out, it's all good. The few cities I do build buildings -- I just buy culture-improvements. By industrial -- I'm getting 300-400 culture per turn, so even with the higher costs -- I'm still getting a SP every ~20-25 turns (marathon).
As far as maritime states - yes - I learned that in the first city spam game... if you go that route, maritime states are for conquering, NOT allying. Without any maritime food -- cities can easily be limited to 2 pop....
Yeah, I like the idea - but as I said, not the execution (especially considering the option is just to burn everything to the ground).
I wish they'd gone the revolutions route -- with ever-extension leading to smaller civs breaking off, conquered civs fighting for their independence, etc.... but then - I guess they were dead set on moving effects from the city level to empire level.
Sounds interesting - will have to give that a try!
Falk
Prince
This has been brought up twice now and I must say I do agree with it. It does make diplomacy somewhat more interesting or at least more important. However it's also the main reason why settling new cities is so unattractive. There should be some incentive to expand in order to compensate that, but instead the game punishes you even more for settling many and/or early cities.kuukkeli said:
Haha, I'm with you on this one.
City spamming was very viable in Civ4 if the circumstances allowed for it. Often I grabbed large landmasses and spent the next centuries defending it until Courthouses/Forbidden Palace/(the wonder that worked like Forbidden Palace)/State Property arrived. A Code-of-Law-slingshot helped a lot, too. Or founding an early religion before spamming settlers. Or going for the Great Lighthouse. Or simply working some early gold resources. There were many options to choose from depending on the map.zonk said:
In Civ5 I find that much harder to do, i.e. there are less options to make it viable. What's worse, I don't really know why I would want to build more cities than just a handful or so.
It somewhat reminds me of Col2 where building a colony was actually bad and not building anything besides the absolutely necessary minimum stuff was the most effective way to victory. It's not as nearly as bad as this in Civ5, but I think it's similar.
I tend to agree with OP. I loved Civ 5 at first, but I'm already bored.
The combat mechanics work great, but the AI really isn't that good at them and quite frankly sucks in combat. Without an overwhelming numbers advantage the AI stands no chance. It takes the fun out of it.
On the empire building side... some of the simplifications from Civ 4 have resulted in a net loss there. Stuff like no heath, global happiness, and the others that everybody have pointed out. There's definitely positive changes (like roads and maintenance), but the negatives just outweigh them. The empire building side feels shallow and less fun then Civ 4.
So without that, you really need the combat to shine to make up for it, and that requires an AI capable of putting up a fight. Which they're not, unless they have double the units you do. (And even then maybe not, in my last game the Romans declared war on me because their army was so much larger then mine. Ten turns later they offered me cities to end the war because his army no longer existed.)
It's kind of sad really. It should be a better game then it is. I'm hoping the expansions add some of the things back in that made empire building more enjoyable from past Civ games.
The combat mechanics work great, but the AI really isn't that good at them and quite frankly sucks in combat. Without an overwhelming numbers advantage the AI stands no chance. It takes the fun out of it.
On the empire building side... some of the simplifications from Civ 4 have resulted in a net loss there. Stuff like no heath, global happiness, and the others that everybody have pointed out. There's definitely positive changes (like roads and maintenance), but the negatives just outweigh them. The empire building side feels shallow and less fun then Civ 4.
So without that, you really need the combat to shine to make up for it, and that requires an AI capable of putting up a fight. Which they're not, unless they have double the units you do. (And even then maybe not, in my last game the Romans declared war on me because their army was so much larger then mine. Ten turns later they offered me cities to end the war because his army no longer existed.)
It's kind of sad really. It should be a better game then it is. I'm hoping the expansions add some of the things back in that made empire building more enjoyable from past Civ games.
I couldn't agree more about the comparison to Col2. Going back to the first Civ in '91, this one is the first to really disappoint. There are some great upgrades from IV, but the overall feel is quite bad. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I felt the same way when I started playing Col2--a lot of nice upgrades from the 1994 original, but there was something missing that kept me engaged.
It is too bad...
It is too bad...
CrimsonEdge
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 256
Anyone who says that Wonders feel overpowered probably hasn't used them in conjunction with a civs bonuses.
Say, England building The Great Lighthouse.
Say, England building The Great Lighthouse.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
I'll try to hit the OP's list of points and then some other pieces in the thread:
1) Expansion is just not as slow as you describe. You may have to make concerted efforts like getting relevant techs and social policies, focusing on farms, mines, and working forest tiles and such (throw in granaries too), but it can be done. There are fewer disadvantages to settling land now, since the primary cost is now unhappiness. I would expect worker-spam to hook-up roads and luxury to fuel further expansion. If one was desperate, early happiness buildings and warfare would also suffice.
2) The new cost for distance is road maintenance. Or lacking trade routes in the event one chooses not to build roads/harbors.
3)Realism argument: Resource distribution is naturally unequal.
Gameplay arguments: If every civ had access to all luxuries, there would be little reason to trade them. As for strategic resources, there are benefits to getting multiple sources of those resources (more units that require them, and less risk of losing supply in the event that one is attacked).
Even if an area has neither of those resources, it can still be beneficial as a production, tech, or gold city. With the flexible rush-buy system, it's not too difficult to get these cities up and running with a return for the expenses incurred.
4) Frankly, I'm not sure why you would want to play against AI that would continue pursuing heavily flawed strategies to meet some personality-type. Predictable and non-competitive AI isn't all that fun.
5) With two sets of notable exceptions, you can get most social policies (eventually, with cultural focus). So the primary thing here is which policies you get first. Policies don't become obsolete in the way techs do (although the mileage may vary depending on game situation, as always). As for not switching policies: I'd have to confirm from someone with full game about liberty,freedom/autocracy and piety/rationalsim. It would appear from the SP window that one could switch between those (with anarchy!).
6) Since beakers come from pop and coins from working terrain, switching between gold and science is as easy
as converting from trading posts to farms (without respect to relevant SPs).
7) Mine hills, mill forests, farm/buildings/CS to cover food needs. With 1upt, you just don't need as many units. In addition, golden ages provide a massive bonus to overall production (and policies give other large bonuses). Communism in a liberated society, why not?
8) I find CSs to be a hit or miss proposition depending on game situation and playstyle. On the one hand, the bonuses can be hard to pass up (lots of culture and food, or unit generation), but there's a significant early game investment for bringing them into the fold, when one could be conquering and/or expanding one's own territory.
9) Three examples:
-Stone Henge: massive culture bonus early in the game, you will benefit from extra SPs early on
-Angkor Wat: build less culture buildings, and yet pay less or no gold for land (75% reduction in culture expansion cost)
-Great Wall: slows pillaging, makes infantry cannon fodder, strains cavalry-> Yes, please.
10) I do miss religion somewhat , but as it allowed some significant diplo-gaming, it's not a completely bad thing that it's gone.
1) Expansion is just not as slow as you describe. You may have to make concerted efforts like getting relevant techs and social policies, focusing on farms, mines, and working forest tiles and such (throw in granaries too), but it can be done. There are fewer disadvantages to settling land now, since the primary cost is now unhappiness. I would expect worker-spam to hook-up roads and luxury to fuel further expansion. If one was desperate, early happiness buildings and warfare would also suffice.
2) The new cost for distance is road maintenance. Or lacking trade routes in the event one chooses not to build roads/harbors.
3)Realism argument: Resource distribution is naturally unequal.
Gameplay arguments: If every civ had access to all luxuries, there would be little reason to trade them. As for strategic resources, there are benefits to getting multiple sources of those resources (more units that require them, and less risk of losing supply in the event that one is attacked).
Even if an area has neither of those resources, it can still be beneficial as a production, tech, or gold city. With the flexible rush-buy system, it's not too difficult to get these cities up and running with a return for the expenses incurred.
4) Frankly, I'm not sure why you would want to play against AI that would continue pursuing heavily flawed strategies to meet some personality-type. Predictable and non-competitive AI isn't all that fun.
5) With two sets of notable exceptions, you can get most social policies (eventually, with cultural focus). So the primary thing here is which policies you get first. Policies don't become obsolete in the way techs do (although the mileage may vary depending on game situation, as always). As for not switching policies: I'd have to confirm from someone with full game about liberty,freedom/autocracy and piety/rationalsim. It would appear from the SP window that one could switch between those (with anarchy!).
6) Since beakers come from pop and coins from working terrain, switching between gold and science is as easy
as converting from trading posts to farms (without respect to relevant SPs).7) Mine hills, mill forests, farm/buildings/CS to cover food needs. With 1upt, you just don't need as many units. In addition, golden ages provide a massive bonus to overall production (and policies give other large bonuses). Communism in a liberated society, why not?
8) I find CSs to be a hit or miss proposition depending on game situation and playstyle. On the one hand, the bonuses can be hard to pass up (lots of culture and food, or unit generation), but there's a significant early game investment for bringing them into the fold, when one could be conquering and/or expanding one's own territory.
9) Three examples:
-Stone Henge: massive culture bonus early in the game, you will benefit from extra SPs early on
-Angkor Wat: build less culture buildings, and yet pay less or no gold for land (75% reduction in culture expansion cost)
-Great Wall: slows pillaging, makes infantry cannon fodder, strains cavalry-> Yes, please.
10) I do miss religion somewhat , but as it allowed some significant diplo-gaming, it's not a completely bad thing that it's gone.
jjkrause84
King
Because he wants to "live" history via the game....not just "play a game"
Personally, I feel the same way.
Also, there was always variability involved (if the situatiosn were right Ghandi could be a warmonger, for instance) and none of the strategies of the different civs could be described as "flawed".
Again, it depends on what you want out of the game. If you want a MP game without the other humans then "good" AI is what you want (i.e. AI that will mimic a human and try to win, thus making all the leaders essentially identical). If you want to get your history nerd-ness out then "fun" AI is probably the better option.
I'm on turn 530, only just got into the industrial age. Still my first game, I'm playing it on epic and believe me, it's sloooow. Haven't even had the chance to explore the seas yet because of constant fighting.
my only quible with civ 5 is the poor AI tactics and the constant declarations of war simply because I haven't spoken to them in a few turns; otherwise, great game.
my only quible with civ 5 is the poor AI tactics and the constant declarations of war simply because I haven't spoken to them in a few turns; otherwise, great game.
Conspirator
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Messages
- 388
What speed are you playing on? All my cities have libraries by the time I get Universities. I play on Epic, Large map, King. Try lowering the earth's age to 3 million years, it gives more hills.
blizzrd
Micromanager
I don't understand the hate, I agreed with everything that you said. I feel the same overall disappointment, because I no longer feel in control of a civilization's direction - just a city state or two with a bunch of mercenaries.
Conspirator
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Messages
- 388
It was the same in my first game, things speed up once you get to grips with how the game works in your second and third epic games.
Player likes to be on top of things, and likes to feel sneaky and otherwise successful. Players like to think they outwit the AI that was playing a good game. Good old Sid understands this and last Civ game totally would spoil the player and make the game fun and challengin. Good times. I think I go spoil myself some more with it.
I think the new lead misunderstood how to make the game fun.
Also Charon, you need to play more Civ 5. I see you in like every topic.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
So they get +3 move instead of +2? That doesn't sound that useful. You already have the fastest navy around, the only reason to build the Great Lighthouse is to deny it to someone.
A 4 move trireme moves 25% faster with the great lighthouse. a 6 move english trireme only moves 16% faster.
Besides, if it feels powerful, it is more the +2 from the english bonus than the +1 from the lighthouse, right?
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
There's a spectrum between historical simulation (realism) and game balance, and ciV probably lies closer to game balance in that spectrum. I can assure you that playing disadvantaged sides with realistic notions of supply, economic management, and dozens of other rule complexities that ciV does not include really do drain fun factor and historical nostalgia at light speed for most people. Heck, look at the complaints over 1upt (historically, armies had to either forage or arrange supply transport; in ciV, you can support a certain number of units regardless of location, ie behind enemy lines, or local available infrastructure). Firaxis/2K has its target audience, and as a result, some of the "gameplay," err historical simulation, that you may have been seeking simply had to be cut in their opinion (and in the opinions of other civ gamers). There's nothing wrong with that.
