MrGameTheory's breakdown of the Civ5 PDF manual.. :)

[wapamingo]

I have to say that I enjoy reading your strategies and analysis MTG.

I think you would have been better received if you did not start your very first strategy analysis by condescending everyone.

I primarily play non-competitive MP, and I look forward to trying out some of your strategies.

I agree with your civ ranking - Germans and Ottomans have very poor special abilities and need to be patched ASAP.

 

[MrGameTheory]

I think you would have been better received if you did not start your very first strategy analysis by condescending everyone.

Read this short book and you will understand...

http://www.ofgrandeur.com

 

[SlayerofDeitys]

You thought SoD were no more.

You believed that those 3 little letters would no longer strike terror into your heart as they could never again lay low your thriving civilization.

You were wrong.

From master strategist MrGameTheory comes:

Scouts
Of
Doom!!!

SoD have evolved.

Coming to a PC near you Fall 2010

 

[warpstorm]

wapamingo, he would be ignored by most if he didn't open that way. As it is, people are paying attention to his posts.

Well played, MGT, well played.

 

[bjbrains]

Read this short book and you will understand...

http://www.ofgrandeur.com

Funniest thing I've ever read. Complete and utter unscientific, easily ignored pseudo-mysticism.

In other news: Beliefs don't allow you to act pompous and arrogant and get away with it.

Also, not all publicity is good publicity. If he goes in and acts like a pretentious, factually incorrect and uncaring person, then he will be discounted in the future. If he had presented it in a more rational way, he might have gotten more constructive posts.

 

[Shafi-is-back]

Agree with warpstorm. nicely done MGT! But he's racking up them red cards ...


But i must admit, this post makes a lot more sense. your getting their mate.

BTW - MGT what do you think of Greece's UU's? most ppl think their awsome and hence greece too seems to be billed as a favourite. WHats your take on Greece? How come you havent rated them higher?

 

[MrGameTheory]

Agree with warpstorm. nicely done MGT! But he's racking up them red cards ...


But i must admit, this post makes a lot more sense. your getting their mate.

BTW - MGT what do you think of Greece's UU's? most ppl think their awsome and hence greece too seems to be billed as a favourite. WHats your take on Greece? How come you havent rated them higher?

i like those horses, but you may not get horses. The rest is ok. They are average.

 

[trogman44]

wapamingo, he would be ignored by most if he didn't open that way. As it is, people are paying attention to his posts.

Well played, MGT, well played.

Maybe, but when you attract the attention of formidable adversaries, it turns out a less profitable endeavor. As it stands he still has completely ignored me because he knows that he has no defense to my assertions. Furthermore I will embarrass any defense he puts forth. In effect, if he acknowledges me, he admits defeat. If he ignores me, he admits inferiority. Either way, I think people would rather deal with someone like me than him. I at least, try to be normal and participate like everyone else without pretension or megalomania.

 

[Shafi-is-back]

oh come on! his conduct on this thread has been fine. so maybe most ppl dont agree with his theories so what ... his tone is very different from his first couple of threads.

I'll tell you this much, i for one wouldnt want to take him on in a MP game. Dont hate on the guy just cos he's coming from the left field!

He's just coming out with a strategy, it could be right or wrong does not make anyone a winner or a loser in my opinion.

 

[Altaria87]

I agree with your civ ranking - Germans and Ottomans have very poor special abilities and need to be patched ASAP.

As has been said before on this Thread, Civs are no longer balanced on UA alone, they are balanced as a whole, UA, UU and UBs.

 

[MrGameTheory]

As has been said before on this Thread, Civs are no longer balanced on UA alone, they are balanced as a whole, UA, UU and UBs.

One of the problems with Civ V is that some civilizations have been given unique buildings/units/traits that only will apply to specific settings. This has never been the case for past civ games except Civilization Revolution. The difference was that in Civ Rev you could not change the options so it was acceptable. Civ is praised for its option flexibility, but it appears like they are shooting themselves in the foot this go around by designing core features that do not promote full option flexibility. I believe that this was an error on the part of the game designers because they are almost forcing the use of specific settings in order to create a balanced game. This would be fine, but unfortunately those settings include the introduction of variables which have been proven to not be appealing to competitive Multi-Player communities. They could have designed balanced civilizations that accomplish both the desires of the single/multi player communities, but unfortunately it almost appears as if they are telling the MP community that they not only have no desire to appeal to it, but will go out of its way to make it less appealing.

 

[Altaria87]

The problem with Civ V is that some civilizations have been given unique buildings/units/traits that only will apply to specific settings. This has never been the case for past civ games except Civilization Revolution. The difference was that in Civ Rev you could not change the options so it was acceptable. Civ is praised for its option flexibility, but it appears like they are shooting themselves in the foot this go around by designing core features that require specific options. I believe that this was an error on the part of the game designers because they are almost forcing the use of specific settings in order to create a balanced game. This would be fine, but unfortunately those settings include the introduction of variables which have been proven to not be appealing to competitive Multi-Player communities. They could have designed balanced civilizations that accomplish both the desires of the single/multi player communities, but unfortunately it almost appears as if they are telling the MP community that they not only have no desire to appeal to it, but will go out of its way to make it less appealing.

And this has been admitted by Greg that some Civs will only do well on default settings. But this is like saying that your strategy won't work if Diplo and Space are th eonly victories allowed, that's changing the settings. Firaxis aren't going out of their way to make MP less enjoyable, they are just not detracting from the Single Player experience by making less diverse Civs, just because a minority (the compeitive MP community) are a bit butthurt by it. Besides, as the lobbyers for Items in SSB Tourneys say: The skill of a player is really shown by how he reacts to random stimuli (in this case, Barbs), not by how well he does in a vacum.

 

[MrGameTheory]

And this has been admitted by Greg that some Civs will only do well on default settings. But this is like saying that your strategy won't work if Diplo and Space are th eonly victories allowed, that's changing the settings. Firaxis aren't going out of their way to make MP less enjoyable, they are just not detracting from the Single Player experience by making less diverse Civs, just because a minority (the compeitive MP community) are a bit butthurt by it. Besides, as the lobbyers for Items in SSB Tourneys say: The skill of a player is really shown by how he reacts to random stimuli (in this case, Barbs), not by how well he does in a vacum.

Don't get me wrong, I love all settings. In fact I wish there was an option so every game of civ would have all settings picked at random. I have wanted this forever and it would truly make the entire experience more enjoyable. Unfortunately the MP community, for the most part, does not think the same way and in order to create a stable competitive environment games are often played on restricted settings. But at the same time, some of these restricted settings are important.. MPers look to have games that are 30min-3 hours on average and these "highly promoted" settings are forcing games that will not appeal to as many Mpers as it could have. Civ is now geared toward very long games because it is very easy to defend and survive. With less options to kill opponents quickly, it negatively impacts the MPers choices of fun settings to choose from.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

barbs and city states wont break a good player anyway.
besides you can still remove ruins so no biggy there.

If you want to play civ 5 multiplayer with random civs then you will have to include barbarians and city states.

PS: Luxery resourses has just as big of an impact on the game as barbarians have and are just as random.
I strongly recommend that you play with barbarians and city states on competetive multiplayer as it adds another layer of skill. Also the game is balanced with start bias so turing it off can break the game.
Only thing you should turn off are ruins.

Ps if i see you scout rushing i might as well get walls with masonry. Your scouts will die fairly easily then.
also i am surprized that you rank india as a weak civ in a game where it is easier to defend then to attack. there bonus is huge in the mid to late game.

15% to each nearby unit when you attack with 8 scouts vs 1 warriors and a city. well you can surround a city with 6 units max. those units get at least 30% bonus. in one setup 1 get 60%, 2 get 45% rest get 30%. the scouts will have strength 3x(5.20)+2x(5.50)+1x(5.80)+ 2 reserves vs capital size 4 with strength 8+ garrison bonus. and that is catching your opponent completely off guard. If the capital city is on a hill your done for so when doing that rush cheak it out!
PS: the manual does not say if the bonus stacks or not so i will need to playtest it.
when you are not rushing you will need to balance out growth, economic development, offence and defence. And pillageing improvements is a good thing to do.
Ps a size 1 city can only support 7 units! 5+1+1.

A general rule when it is harder to attack cities you can focus more on your economical development, and it seems like it is a lot harder to take cities in civ 5 then in civ 4 with inferior units, because of first strike and ranged bombardment. Later in the game this will be less of a issue since your tech level will not be even.

 

[MrGameTheory]

barbs and city states wont break a good player anyway.
besides you can still remove ruins so no biggy there.

If you want to play civ 5 multiplayer with random civs then you will have to include barbarians and city states.

PS: Luxery resourses has just as big of an impact on the game as barbarians have and are just as random.
I strongly recommend that you play with barbarians and city states on competetive multiplayer as it adds another layer of skill. Also the game is balanced with start bias so turing it off can break the game.
Only thing you should turn off are ruins.

Ps if i see you scout rushing i might as well get walls with masonry. Your scouts will die fairly easily then.
also i am surprized that you rank india as a weak civ in a game where it is easier to defend then to attack. there bonus is huge in the mid to late game.

There should at least be an option to restrict certain Civs from being picked with the random option. I believe that based on the core features of the game, luxury v AI involvement is not equal.

It would have been so much fun if the game makers were able to make a game with 5-10 strategies for each setting. Personally I like random features and I prefer a game of backgammon to chess. But at the same time I prefer a game of Risk to Backgammon.

On a side note, it would have been a step in the right direction if the dev team made a civ in the direction of more emphasis on communication and negotiation. The introduction of online social networks has made people more open to online communication and it would have been bold for the game makers to embrace this social migration. The Civ franchise has always taken things to the limit of strategy and it looks like they are no longer tapping into our strategic potential.

Civ was supposed to be a franchise that expanded our strategic minds, not restrict them so there is room for others to get into the party. I know civ network will have a social side to it, but it will also be restricted to attract the masses far more than Civ V.

Sid should have progressed Civ towards full blown Civilization simulator instead of dumbing it down so much for commercial appeal.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

no there not haveing one more luxery then your opponent has a bigger impact then faceing a few barbarians.
even haveing one more bonus resourse early game, or starting next to a river will have a bigger impact on the game then barbarians.

 

[vranasm]

The OP raised some important things from manual. And I kind of understand why so many people on this board are not concerned with it. This is SP forum mostly afterall and a lot of things apply only to competitive PvP.
I admit I never played CIV multiplayer, but played enough of competitive web based PvP games so I understand that some people dont understand how competitive PvP functions.

Like for example when someone says that losing initial units isnt problem since cities can defend themself.
or someone who says that foreign legionar is not strong since it gets bonus only in foreign land (btw this applies to SP too... generally you want to avoid fighting on your land and when you fight you want to bring the fight to enemy land, this was the case in older Civ versions and will be true in this game for sure).

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Given the fact that the attacker can choose where the battle takes place against a purely defensive opponent and fast units can pillage improvements ahead of your forces, I don't think it'll be a big issue.

Geography will largely determine the location of any attack as will the development of both civilizations.

My discussion hasn't been about a purely defensive civilization in that this suggests they are passive. The best defense, is highly aggressive, taking every worthwhile opportunity to counterattack. Ranged attack and then the very mobile cavalry forces should make the counter-attacks overwhelming, especially given road networks will allow a large amount of force to be easily deployed by the defender.

You do make a good point that very mobile units could cut important roads. However, pillaged improvements are cheaper to repair, so repairing these may not be too difficult.


BTW, I have already voted on a poll that I'll play as Russia first (this is on another forum). Range attack an invader, then let my cossacks race in clear up the rest - helped by their bonus against damaged units Plus you have got to love double strategic resources.

 

[Thyrwyn]

20) France gets their first policy 1-2 turns before almost every other civilization. And their second policy 2-5 turns before every other civilization. This can exponentially increase. The problem with this is that France essentially ends up getting far more bonus traits than every other civilization in the early game which ultimately gives France a huge strategic advantage in almost every scenario. They also get more cultural squares for their empire.

Slight correction - In the early game, Paris will produce twice as much culture as any other capital - 4 culture/turn as opposed to 2.

This means that France will get their first Policy (25 culture) on turn 7; everyone else will get their first one on turn 13. France will get their 2nd Policy (45 more culture) on turn 18... most likely before they have had a chance to settle a 2nd city and raise the cost; everyone else will have to wait until turn 35. . .assuming they haven't built a 2nd city.

Pottery + Calendar - 105 beakers; which France should get around turn 22 (when Paris should be at size 3). This is based on a city needing 10 +(current size *6) surplus food to grow.

If France took Tradition & Aristocracy as their first 2 policies, they can start building Stonehenge in turn 22, getting +33% to their hammers from Aristocracy. This means it will only take 90 hammers to build Stonehenge.

Assuming Size 3, we have Palace (+2 hammers), City tile (+1 hammer, 2 food), 1 hill (+2 hammers, 0 food), 1 forest (+1 hammer, 1 food), 1 Grassland (2 food), and Tradition (1 food). That is 6 hammers & 6 food/turn. Stonehenge will finish in 15 turns (turn 37).

And, no, I am not obsessed. . . .

 

[Schuesseled]

kittenOFchaos, I think you make good points, but a couple things to keep in mind.

One, the combat advantage is to the attacker overall (-33% penalty for the defender in flat terrain). Archers help offset this, true, but I think it'll even out (plus, you can use Archers on the offensive if you plan it right).

Defenders who have fortified get a +50% bonus, so a total of +17% when defending open terrain, as long as your not moving or attacking the approaching troops

Edit: Welcome to Civfanatics Gerurun...a forum, almost as addictive as civ.

I'll be more than happy to show you how this isn't the case when the game comes out.

The counter-offensive will have 'extra' movement due to roads if it works similar to previous games. In previous games, if you still have a fraction of a move from a road, it counted as a full move, basically meaning units using roads in friendly/neutral territory move very quickly. It should give the ability to use ranged attack on the incoming forces, pull the range forces away so faster units can sweep the field of damaged units and pull out.

If I felt the need to 'teach' this, I'd probably draw a diagram.

The only thing that may make the offensive pratical is the fact many cavalry units are so mobile. They may be able to strike deep and clear the way sufficiently. But, their mobility also makes it possible for the defender to bring all cavalry units throughout an empire to the threatened portion.

All attacks use up all remaining movement points, unless you have an ability or promotion that counters this (e.g Blitz, Logistics or a Camel Archer)

So for the most part that won't work.

The best way to have a defensive line against ranged units would be too have:
ranged melee ranged melee, in a line.

Of course this set up is vulnerable to direct assualts from fast moving cavalry.