• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

My rants and opinions of Civ 5

Warriori

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
26
Location
Finland
Something i thought i should write down..

Using resources to determine unit count seems to be idea which should have been avoided. It just doesn't seem to have much sense in it. I could somewhat understand that a capital ship requires (assuming a capital ship depicts whole battlegroup) oil resource but why oh why does swordman require iron 'upkeep' cost? What might have made more sense - to me at least - would have been the same as with say done (seemingly) with coal resource. Essentially using the limited resources to limit the number of cities that can produce things and buildings that require a certain resource. Say forcing iron units to be build only in cities with 'smith' and then assigning that 'smith' building an iron 'upkeep' would have made far more sense.

Then when peace agreement with some one ends i end up getting the same popup on screen for all the following turns until i save and reload (a bug).

Would it be too much to ask to have units performing movement that spreads over several turns to have (colored) arrows to depict the its progress and intended target that would be shown when the unit is selected (akin to things seen for example in Total War game series).

Cultural 'tech tree' seems a lot better than the old civics which it seems to have replaced.

Domination victory - especially in archipelago maps - seems (or rather is from personal experience) at times rather easy as only capitals need to be taken (and held).

No loading bar or other indicator shown during the intro to tell when rest of the scene could be bypassed.

The textures of rivers... At times (when they are not shining) they look like blue plastic tubes not like flowing water. Sea however is very nice and possible part of the reason why rivers look so 'bad' is just the contrast to the high quality seas.

For starters at least...
 
Something i thought i should write down..

Using resources to determine unit count seems to be idea which should have been avoided. It just doesn't seem to have much sense in it. I could somewhat understand that a capital ship requires (assuming a capital ship depicts whole battlegroup) oil resource but why oh why does swordman require iron 'upkeep' cost? What might have made more sense - to me at least - would have been the same as with say done (seemingly) with coal resource. Essentially using the limited resources to limit the number of cities that can produce things and buildings that require a certain resource. Say forcing iron units to be build only in cities with 'smith' and then assigning that 'smith' building an iron 'upkeep' would have made far more sense.

This would take us back to civ IV where you could spam endless swordsmen. So one less new feature for civ V :) But i agree, it would made more sense.
And i would like to have alot more buildings using resources.
 
This would take us back to civ IV where you could spam endless swordsmen. So one less new feature for civ V :) But i agree, it would made more sense.
And i would like to have alot more buildings using resources.
Well now you can spam endless spear/pike/musket/etc/men which is not all that much different from the endless swordsmen spamming.
 
With all the flaws, "Haakka paalle" still works, if you use it rightly :)

"to OP, not from Finland, but I love the saying of Haakka paalle.

For other ppl, it means whack them on the head.
 
Well now you can spam endless spear/pike/musket/etc/men which is not all that much different from the endless swordsmen spamming.

The problem is not the new resource limit, but the units that are not using it...

IMO, they need to add copper again, and make units use those...

I love the whole copper vs iron wars in IV lol...
 
I dont understand this, if they implemented system that unit or building require resource, then why they didnt make all buildings/units require something?
 
The problem is not the new resource limit, but the units that are not using it...

IMO, they need to add copper again, and make units use those...

I love the whole copper vs iron wars in IV lol...
Well... I can see no sense what so ever in using resource (with possible exception of oil) upkeep for units. That is the units themselves are not actively consuming the resources. They are just using the end product. Instead the resources are (or rather should be) used by the buildings that actually build the units. But that of course is just my opinion.


As for other subjects of the rant...

Also the whole mysterious usage of aircrafts seem to elude me. Enough actually that i avoid ever using them. First a fighter/zero uses same amount of oil as battleship which makes them rather poor choice to waste resources into - arty + big ships is much more efficient. Second rebasing the fighters - instead of easy business line in Civ 4 - is now severely limited.
 
"hakkaa päälle" - Cut them down, or rather Cut them skulls

I'm surprised the OP didn't register my threadjack.

He must be a Swede.
 
"hakkaa päälle" - Cut them down, or rather Cut them skulls

I'm surprised the OP didn't register my threadjack.

He must be a Swede.
Sure i did, i just chose to ignore it :p

And 'hakkaa päälle' is kinda difficult to translate. 'hakkaa' ~ hit (them), 'päälle' ~ to the top (of something)... cut them down probably translates it fairly well, or crush them under you or something..
 
Top Bottom