Not yet. I haven't had a strong desert start yet which is odd given the number of games I've started, including a number using the Tectonics map script which can occasionally go nuts with deserts. I've considered both Open Sky and Sun God in a few games but haven't taken either yet. The 3 faith on Granaries is enticing.
Plumber spill entire bottle of pvc glue on carpet. Carpet sad. Melt carpet. Toxic smells. Carpet replacement. All carpet must go. Things in closets. Office in closet. Sad.
Plumber spill entire bottle of pvc glue on carpet. Carpet sad. Melt carpet. Toxic smells. Carpet replacement. All carpet must go. Things in closets. Office in closet. Sad.
I'm in mid-industrial in my playthrough of this version.
Standard continents, King, Standard speed. Played as Timur, with 4UC, On my continent was Morocco, Israel, Rome. The other continent was America, Shoshone, Inca, and Khmer
SpoilerEarly Warfare :
Closest Neighbour was Morocco. Two civs with no early war bonuses, so that's a nice. Al-Mansur was on the far coast (ice blocked my approach by sea), so he had coastal and inland cities. He forward settled me inland so I burned down two of his cities and sued for peace in the mid-classical. He did it again so I burned down every city except his capital just 5 turns before hitting medieval. I held my boot to his neck for those five turns until he could capitulate. Stupid idea, Morocco is the worst vassal because he pillages your trade routes at peace. Morocco needs to be destroyed utterly if he is a neighbour.
early inland cities were easy before they got walls up. This gave me enough XP (thanks largely to this version's XP bug) that I upgraded all 4 of my spears to City Assault. City Assault spears are enough to tank hits from walled cities and still win handily. I had a squad of 3 archers/comp bows, 2 chariots, and my pathfinder to mop up the rest. The archers still hit pretty soft, but as the only ranged option, they suffice, especially in desert, where you can get 2 hits on an approaching army. I relied heavily on open desert and used Al-Mansur's starting position against him to nullify his melee units.
Late classical/early medieval Al-Mansur rebuilt his forward-settled cities, and an additional city on the coast. My early advantage relied on having a mounted advantage to soften his units, and one of his forward settled cities had 2 horse tiles at 2/3 range from the city, so burned that down before he could improve them. I had 2 horsemen and 2 skirmishers now, and desert starts favour mounted units heavilly. I didn't get siege units up until I had taken everything except Al-Mansur's 2 main cities, both were on the coast with 9+, walls and lighthouses. Between their coast and a river that ran through both cities, the approach was very difficult. Rabat was manageable with 20CS base, It fell once I had my 3 range comp bows in position, and upgraded 1 of my horsemen to a knight. However, at 26CS with a comp bowman garrison, I was pretty sure taking Marrakech would cost me half my army if I were to commit to a siege. I couldn't blockade it because I couldn't get any boats to it, and it could kill anything in my army with 2-3 shots.
In summary:
City assault melee are very good. A little too good, IMO. Cities currently trade well with ranged units, but they do single-digit damage to city-assault spears, and that's before I get cover.
The Drill line is hands-down more useful than the shock line for melee units, but I think Overrun still makes Shock the better choice for mounted. So we are in a situation where you only go drill on unmounted, and only go shock on mounted. I don't really mind it, but maybe some other people have a problem with this odd non-choice.
Possibly as a result of the city-assault promotion, inland cities fall pretty easily and don't require a huge commitment of units to take. Maybe 4 units of any composition, as long as 1 of them is a city-assault melee.
Coastal, non-capital cities require a full commitment of your forces. It's doable, but you need to work for it
Coastal capitals are unassailable without a tech advantage right now. a pre-Renaissance coastal capital can go shot-for-shot with most armies. They might fall, but not before they decimate you. I think the CS on lighthouse and harbors are hurting melee units too much.
Proposed changes:
remove the CS bonus from lighthouse/harbor.
Either boost walls/castles by another 2 each, or nerf Drill/City Assault.
Bring back the CS to Constabulary (3-5)
SpoilerMedieval Wars of Religion :
I rushed shrine first, and took God of War for my pantheon. Thanks to my successful wars with Morocco and the paucity of City-States who are very aggressive at killing barbarians this patch, I founded Islam on turn 94. To my south were Rome, on a very nice peninsula all to himself, and Israel. Israel founded much sooner than me, and Rome founded the last religion, just 1 turn after me (oof). Passive and trade pressure feel a lot better this patch. I had been complaining about the inextricable way that foreign religions were able to pressure my own cities, even when they were further away, smaller, and had less faith output than me. Whatever bug was causing this in earlier versions seems to have been resolved, so thank you for that.
Israel converted pretty much every city-state on our continent to his own religion before I have converted my own cities. He started sending missionaries to my newly-minted Moroccan Vassal, and that was the beginning of the end for him. Rome declared war on Israel 10 turns prior to me vassalizing Morocco. Each had managed to take 1 of each other's cities, but it was clear from the war score that Rome was winning in the field. I came in from the north, and participated in a shared siege on Nazareth with Rome, and opened up a new front at Bethlehem, immediately north of Jerusalem. I captured and razed Bethlehem quickly (inland, flatland city with easy approach, and my units were highly promoted now). Rome took 4 cities, including the one he had lost, and I razed 2 cities. I turned on Jerusalem only 3 turns before Israel capitulated to Rome, forcing me into a peace treaty. Very smart of the AI to cut off a 2-sided war by capitulating to the weaker military power.
However, Rome had puppeted/annexed his 3 new cities while I had razed mine. I let them burn down in peacetime and recovered from war weariness while Rome struggled to consolidate his empire. I declared war 5 turns later, Jerusalem fell, along with the 2 of the Israelite cities that Rome had conquered and I razed them both. Within 10 turns Rome was in full revolt. The newly recaptured city of Arretium seceded, and barbarians started spawning outside his capital. And then his troubles really started, because I had just entered the Renaissance, where both of my UUs are unlocked. Rome lost his capital and 2 core cities, then capitulated.
Conclusion:
The medieval/Renaissance wars were much easier than the early wars. This is possibly thanks to the XP bug which allowed be to build 150+ XP units en masse and smash them into the already delicate Israel and Rome. The double-whammy of 2 powerful UUs coming out for me also made Renaissance a huge power spike for me, so it's unfair to judge combat based on that.
I took 2 holy cities and used Inquisitors on them. These were the only 2 cases where I used Inquisitors, because the penalties on them are so fierce. With the head of the snake cut off, I was able to reverse their religious pressure using missionaries and trade routes for the city-states, but it took a lot of investment.
I razed every non-capital city I conquered, so I was able to wipe the slate clean on everything except the city-states. I think the new Inquisitor system heavily favors razing as a component of religious play. I didn't realize this until I reflected back on the game, but I didn't have any of the problems people are complaining about w.r.t. inquisitor's penalties being too draconian. This is because I a) never had a single missionary convert any of my own cities, and b) killed >200citizens following foreign religions, because I'm Timur. I don't want my experience to act as a counterpoint to people's negative experiences with inquisitors because I played a very unique game w.r.t. religion where everyone seemed to stay in their own lane and then die horribly.
From my brief use of Inquisitors in my own game, I can now confirm that Inquisitors throwing a city into resistance forces every citizen in the city to produce 1unhappiness. If you were playing an otherwise peaceful game, but had an aggressive conversion-focused religion as a neighbor (India, Byzantium, etc.) I can see how this new system could be insanely painful to deal with. However, with only 1 turn of revolt, it's not enough to cause empire-wide happiness-related effects, but the loss of an entire population for every inquisitor action feels so unnecessary. I propose the population loss be removed, but turns of revolt be increased, Your cities won't grown, so the death toll aspect of the inquisitions is captured, but you also get the widespread fear and unrest which could last long enough to seriously threaten the stability of an empire. This gives peaceful players another avenue to cripple or hold off a more militaristic neighbor, and I really like the potential here.
SpoilerOther notes :
I have gotten up to ironclads now, and I own my entire continent, so the wars will be beachheads and naval engagements from now on. Ironclads (60CS) do about 40 damage per hit vs a 49CS, tertiary city, which is respectable. Once my ironclads get better promoted, they could become a danger, but they feel about right now. Of course, the 3/5 from lighthouse/harbour are contributing to this "good" feeling, but I can't say if a 41CS city would also feel good. It's only 17% less, after all. I do think some more Renaissance CS could be added via the Constabulary, and maybe the Seaport/Train Stations could give another 5. I can already say I am dreading having to land my newly-minted riflemen to take on 49CS cities. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a bloodbath.
I built a pretty large empire, but I wasn't able to build the Grand Temple until I was already in the Renaissance. I wasn't able to build Oxford until even later still. The population requirements for both these wonders are way too high for their tech level. Grand Temple is conceivably doable if you focused growth, but 40 on Oxford is insane. It’s the same amount as the EIC and Ironworks a tech level later. Can these two please be looked at again?
I haven’t reached ideologies yet, I’m looking at the new party leadership and just... Why? That’s sooo many yields. That’s 40 yields in every city. I thought party leadership at +5 already made it one of the stronger Order tenets.
Plumber spill entire bottle of pvc glue on carpet. Carpet sad. Melt carpet. Toxic smells. Carpet replacement. All carpet must go. Things in closets. Office in closet. Sad.
Counterpoint: Drill 2 opens up formation for Knights and Lancers, which is quite useful to counter enemy cavalry or punch through it while you're advancing. Drill promoted knights also upgrade into drill promoted Tanks, which become stalwart Tanks. And... If I get to Tanks first, well, you're going to have a bad time.
The City-States are damned axe murderers right now. This has been the case for many versions now, but I only had 2 in proximity to my start and I think they cleared more barb camps than I did. They threw my entire early game into jeopardy because they thinned the flow of barbs too effectively, and they nearly cost me a religion (god of war). I shudder to think if I had a third CS neighbor. I wonder if they could let just... not clear barb camps? Like ancient ruins, what if the CS just weren’t able to move onto those tiles, or otherwise ignored camp tiles, and needed a major civ to disperse them?
The Khmer took Tutelary gods, and were leading the pack on their continent. It’s a very good fit for their kit, though not as synergistic as Goddess of Beauty. Shameless plug, perhaps, but I’m very happy with their performance in AI games, and the AI seems to be able to handle their abilities.
Catapults suck. They have 1 job and they are just total garbage at it. Catapults need a CS/RCS boost, because melee units are doing more damage to cities while also being more durable, more mobile, and cheaper.
I very much appreciate that in this case you mean murdering people who have axes (the barbarians) rather murdering people with axes (which I guess is actually happening less now).
The City-States are damned axe murderers right now. This has been the case for many versions now, but I only had 2 in proximity to my start and I think they cleared more barb camps than I did. They threw my entire early game into jeopardy because they thinned the flow of barbs too effectively, and they nearly cost me a religion (god of war). I shudder to think if I had a third CS neighbor. I wonder if they could let just... not clear barb camps? Like ancient ruins, what if the CS just weren’t able to move onto those tiles, or otherwise ignored camp tiles, and needed a major civ to disperse them?
The Khmer took Tutelary gods, and were leading the pack on their continent. It’s a very good fit for their kit, though not as synergistic as Goddess of Beauty. Shameless plug, perhaps, but I’m very happy with their performance in AI games, and the AI seems to be able to handle their abilities.
Catapults suck. They have 1 job and they are just total garbage at it. Catapults need a CS/RCS boost, because melee units are doing more damage to cities while also being more durable, more mobile, and cheaper.
I'm in mid-industrial in my playthrough of this version.
Standard continents, King, Standard speed. Played as Timur, with 4UC, On my continent was Morocco, Israel, Rome. The other continent was America, Shoshone, Inca, and Khmer
SpoilerEarly Warfare :
Closest Neighbour was Morocco. Two civs with no early war bonuses, so that's a nice. Al-Mansur was on the far coast (ice blocked my approach by sea), so he had coastal and inland cities. He forward settled me inland so I burned down two of his cities and sued for peace in the mid-classical. He did it again so I burned down every city except his capital just 5 turns before hitting medieval. I held my boot to his neck for those five turns until he could capitulate. Stupid idea, Morocco is the worst vassal because he pillages your trade routes at peace. Morocco needs to be destroyed utterly if he is a neighbour.
early inland cities were easy before they got walls up. This gave me enough XP (thanks largely to this version's XP bug) that I upgraded all 4 of my spears to City Assault. City Assault spears are enough to tank hits from walled cities and still win handily. I had a squad of 3 archers/comp bows, 2 chariots, and my pathfinder to mop up the rest. The archers still hit pretty soft, but as the only ranged option, they suffice, especially in desert, where you can get 2 hits on an approaching army. I relied heavily on open desert and used Al-Mansur's starting position against him to nullify his melee units.
Late classical/early medieval Al-Mansur rebuilt his forward-settled cities, and an additional city on the coast. My early advantage relied on having a mounted advantage to soften his units, and one of his forward settled cities had 2 horse tiles at 2/3 range from the city, so burned that down before he could improve them. I had 2 horsemen and 2 skirmishers now, and desert starts favour mounted units heavilly. I didn't get siege units up until I had taken everything except Al-Mansur's 2 main cities, both were on the coast with 9+, walls and lighthouses. Between their coast and a river that ran through both cities, the approach was very difficult. Rabat was manageable with 20CS base, It fell once I had my 3 range comp bows in position, and upgraded 1 of my horsemen to a knight. However, at 26CS with a comp bowman garrison, I was pretty sure taking Marrakech would cost me half my army if I were to commit to a siege. I couldn't blockade it because I couldn't get any boats to it, and it could kill anything in my army with 2-3 shots.
In summary:
City assault melee are very good. A little too good, IMO. Cities currently trade well with ranged units, but they do single-digit damage to city-assault spears, and that's before I get cover.
The Drill line is hands-down more useful than the shock line for melee units, but I think Overrun still makes Shock the better choice for mounted. So we are in a situation where you only go drill on unmounted, and only go shock on mounted. I don't really mind it, but maybe some other people have a problem with this odd non-choice.
Possibly as a result of the city-assault promotion, inland cities fall pretty easily and don't require a huge commitment of units to take. Maybe 4 units of any composition, as long as 1 of them is a city-assault melee.
Coastal, non-capital cities require a full commitment of your forces. It's doable, but you need to work for it
Coastal capitals are unassailable without a tech advantage right now. a pre-Renaissance coastal capital can go shot-for-shot with most armies. They might fall, but not before they decimate you. I think the CS on lighthouse and harbors are hurting melee units too much.
Proposed changes:
remove the CS bonus from lighthouse/harbor.
Either boost walls/castles by another 2 each, or nerf Drill/City Assault.
Bring back the CS to Constabulary (3-5)
SpoilerMedieval Wars of Religion :
I rushed shrine first, and took God of War for my pantheon. Thanks to my successful wars with Morocco and the paucity of City-States who are very aggressive at killing barbarians this patch, I founded Islam on turn 94. To my south were Rome, on a very nice peninsula all to himself, and Israel. Israel founded much sooner than me, and Rome founded the last religion, just 1 turn after me (oof). Passive and trade pressure feel a lot better this patch. I had been complaining about the inextricable way that foreign religions were able to pressure my own cities, even when they were further away, smaller, and had less faith output than me. Whatever bug was causing this in earlier versions seems to have been resolved, so thank you for that.
Israel converted pretty much every city-state on our continent to his own religion before I have converted my own cities. He started sending missionaries to my newly-minted Moroccan Vassal, and that was the beginning of the end for him. Rome declared war on Israel 10 turns prior to me vassalizing Morocco. Each had managed to take 1 of each other's cities, but it was clear from the war score that Rome was winning in the field. I came in from the north, and participated in a shared siege on Nazareth with Rome, and opened up a new front at Bethlehem, immediately north of Jerusalem. I captured and razed Bethlehem quickly (inland, flatland city with easy approach, and my units were highly promoted now). Rome took 4 cities, including the one he had lost, and I razed 2 cities. I turned on Jerusalem only 3 turns before Israel capitulated to Rome, forcing me into a peace treaty. Very smart of the AI to cut off a 2-sided war by capitulating to the weaker military power.
However, Rome had puppeted/annexed his 3 new cities while I had razed mine. I let them burn down in peacetime and recovered from war weariness while Rome struggled to consolidate his empire. I declared war 5 turns later, Jerusalem fell, along with the 2 of the Israelite cities that Rome had conquered and I razed them both. Within 10 turns Rome was in full revolt. The newly recaptured city of Arretium seceded, and barbarians started spawning outside his capital. And then his troubles really started, because I had just entered the Renaissance, where both of my UUs are unlocked. Rome lost his capital and 2 core cities, then capitulated.
Conclusion:
The medieval/Renaissance wars were much easier than the early wars. This is possibly thanks to the XP bug which allowed be to build 150+ XP units en masse and smash them into the already delicate Israel and Rome. The double-whammy of 2 powerful UUs coming out for me also made Renaissance a huge power spike for me, so it's unfair to judge combat based on that.
I took 2 holy cities and used Inquisitors on them. These were the only 2 cases where I used Inquisitors, because the penalties on them are so fierce. With the head of the snake cut off, I was able to reverse their religious pressure using missionaries and trade routes for the city-states, but it took a lot of investment.
I razed every non-capital city I conquered, so I was able to wipe the slate clean on everything except the city-states. I think the new Inquisitor system heavily favors razing as a component of religious play. I didn't realize this until I reflected back on the game, but I didn't have any of the problems people are complaining about w.r.t. inquisitor's penalties being too draconian. This is because I a) never had a single missionary convert any of my own cities, and b) killed >200citizens following foreign religions, because I'm Timur. I don't want my experience to act as a counterpoint to people's negative experiences with inquisitors because I played a very unique game w.r.t. religion where everyone seemed to stay in their own lane and then die horribly.
From my brief use of Inquisitors in my own game, I can now confirm that Inquisitors throwing a city into resistance forces every citizen in the city to produce 1unhappiness. If you were playing an otherwise peaceful game, but had an aggressive conversion-focused religion as a neighbor (India, Byzantium, etc.) I can see how this new system could be insanely painful to deal with. However, with only 1 turn of revolt, it's not enough to cause empire-wide happiness-related effects, but the loss of an entire population for every inquisitor action feels so unnecessary. I propose the population loss be removed, but turns of revolt be increased, Your cities won't grown, so the death toll aspect of the inquisitions is captured, but you also get the widespread fear and unrest which could last long enough to seriously threaten the stability of an empire. This gives peaceful players another avenue to cripple or hold off a more militaristic neighbor, and I really like the potential here.
SpoilerOther notes :
I have gotten up to ironclads now, and I own my entire continent, so the wars will be beachheads and naval engagements from now on. Ironclads (60CS) do about 40 damage per hit vs a 49CS, tertiary city, which is respectable. Once my ironclads get better promoted, they could become a danger, but they feel about right now. Of course, the 3/5 from lighthouse/harbour are contributing to this "good" feeling, but I can't say if a 41CS city would also feel good. It's only 17% less, after all. I do think some more Renaissance CS could be added via the Constabulary, and maybe the Seaport/Train Stations could give another 5. I can already say I am dreading having to land my newly-minted riflemen to take on 49CS cities. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a bloodbath.
I built a pretty large empire, but I wasn't able to build the Grand Temple until I was already in the Renaissance. I wasn't able to build Oxford until even later still. The population requirements for both these wonders are way too high for their tech level. Grand Temple is conceivably doable if you focused growth, but 40 on Oxford is insane. It’s the same amount as the EIC and Ironworks a tech level later. Can these two please be looked at again?
I haven’t reached ideologies yet, I’m looking at the new party leadership and just... Why? That’s sooo many yields. That’s 40 yields in every city. I thought party leadership at +5 already made it one of the stronger Order tenets.
When you’re done with this project, you need to release a book of poetry
I gave Shock to all my spear unit, because later on Goedendags it was boosted up even more
I played with dozens CSs and they just rushed on barbs. I took Authority and this was huge mistake, because I couldn't hunt any of the barb camps.
I agree Catapults suck. I build them, but only after few upgrades they did their job. At the beginning they were totally lame...
About CSs. Is it possible to make them attack more aggresively if they are your ally? I had many wars, and they never crossed enemy borders with more than ocassional one unit.
Catapults suck. They have 1 job and they are just total garbage at it. Catapults need a CS/RCS boost, because melee units are doing more damage to cities while also being more durable, more mobile, and cheaper.
1) With Siege I/Drill I: Catapults have RCS 27, Swordsman have 22.95. And catapults don't take damage.
2) Volley / City Assault: Catapults have RCS 36, Swordsman have: 38.25.
So if you get your promotion up to tier III swordsman do start to do more damage, at the cost of some damage that they take (which with CA is somewhat minimal).
Taking city hits:
1) Siege I / Drill I (both have cover): Catapults have RCS 28.2, Swords have 22.95.
2) Volley / City Assault (neither directly affects defensive RCS): Catapults have: 29.4, Swords have 24.65 (takes half damage).
Based on my quick review, it looks like cats do fine at low promotion levels, but at the tier IIIs swords start to win both offensively and defensive.
But here is the counterpoint...Swords have to deal with more ranged bombardment than cats do normally. While those swords are attacking, I can have the c bows I've set up behind that city start pelting them with everything they have got. They can't do the same to the cat whose farther away.
So I could see the case for cat weakness but I'm not fully there yet. Swords cost iron, tier III promotion are not always easy to get, etc. Cats however are a lot slower and more fragile.....I'll try watching for it myself in some upcoming games but I haven't had the "cats are too weak" mindset in most of my previous early wars.
The City-States are damned axe murderers right now. This has been the case for many versions now, but I only had 2 in proximity to my start and I think they cleared more barb camps than I did. They threw my entire early game into jeopardy because they thinned the flow of barbs too effectively, and they nearly cost me a religion (god of war). I shudder to think if I had a third CS neighbor. I wonder if they could let just... not clear barb camps? Like ancient ruins, what if the CS just weren’t able to move onto those tiles, or otherwise ignored camp tiles, and needed a major civ to disperse them?
The Khmer took Tutelary gods, and were leading the pack on their continent. It’s a very good fit for their kit, though not as synergistic as Goddess of Beauty. Shameless plug, perhaps, but I’m very happy with their performance in AI games, and the AI seems to be able to handle their abilities.
Catapults suck. They have 1 job and they are just total garbage at it. Catapults need a CS/RCS boost, because melee units are doing more damage to cities while also being more durable, more mobile, and cheaper.
You need somewhat early ironworking/catapults for them to be relevant.
If early enough they can be ok especially vs flatland but depends a bit what uu the opponent have and and they need a bit of babysitting with melee in front with free retreat options.
But I prefer to either have a short war for a city and some exp/kills or continue to draw it out all the way through physics for treb upgrade.
1) With Siege I/Drill I: Catapults have RCS 27, Swordsman have 22.95. And catapults don't take damage.
2) Volley / City Assault: Catapults have RCS 36, Swordsman have: 38.25.
So if you get your promotion up to tier III swordsman do start to do more damage, at the cost of some damage that they take (which with CA is somewhat minimal).
Taking city hits:
1) Siege I / Drill I (both have cover): Catapults have RCS 28.2, Swords have 22.95.
2) Volley / City Assault (neither directly affects defensive RCS): Catapults have: 29.4, Swords have 24.65 (takes half damage).
Based on my quick review, it looks like cats do fine at low promotion levels, but at the tier IIIs swords start to win both offensively and defensive.
But here is the counterpoint...Swords have to deal with more ranged bombardment than cats do normally. While those swords are attacking, I can have the c bows I've set up behind that city start pelting them with everything they have got. They can't do the same to the cat whose farther away.
So I could see the case for cat weakness but I'm not fully there yet. Swords cost iron, tier III promotion are not always easy to get, etc. Cats however are a lot slower and more fragile.....I'll try watching for it myself in some upcoming games but I haven't had the "cats are too weak" mindset in most of my previous early wars.
Your analysis ignores that melee units are always higher promoted. There is no situation where your cats are higher level than your front line. My specific point of comparison in my actual game was lvl 2/3 catapults vs lvl 4/5 spears, because they had been out for a full tech level at that point, fighting barbs and pushing through Morocco’s field units. It was no contest.
siege units also move slower, so if you can afford to take cities without them then you should, because waiting for catapults buys the enemy time.
Hey guys for some reason I had to do a manual install of 4-17-2 because the installer wouldn't install EUI but it did install the mod. Never had that happen before. Civ5 is installed in steam on a new computer. Rebooted. Made no difference. Looks like the installer can't find the location of Civ5. Steam is installed outside program files maybe that is it. Cheers.
Oh, another, other observation:
I was playing with my New Beliefs mod, which splits the Orthodoxy enhancer belief into 2 different beliefs: 1 has the bonuses to passive pressure distance and power, the other has the double pressure via TRs.
In my own game, I adopted the bonus that only boosts the pressure to TRs, and I was exerting 200+ pressure per turn on some cities. I think the base pressure values are good where they are, they feel impactful on their own, but between the fixes implemented to passive pressure and the heavy penalties on inquisitors, I think that Orthodoxy's combination of CS/TR/passive pressure in its current form is a doomsday device. I will elaborate in the appropriate balance thread
Hey guys for some reason I had to do a manual install of 4-17-2 because the installer wouldn't install EUI but it did install the mod. Never had that happen before. Civ5 is installed in steam on a new computer. Rebooted. Made no difference. Looks like the installer can't find the location of Civ5. Steam is installed outside program files maybe that is it. Cheers.
It's been always like this. Sadly, the current autoinstaller is unable to detect your Civ5 folder and always tries to but EUI in the default location - if it does not exist, the autoinstaller creates the whole needed folder structure in the default location on drive C (and then Civ fails to find it). You need to manually move the UI_bc1 folder from the wrong/default location to where you installed Steam/Civ5.
Your analysis ignores that melee units are always higher promoted. There is no situation where your cats are higher level than your front line. My specific point of comparison in my actual game was lvl 2/3 catapults vs lvl 4/5 spears, because they had been out for a full tech level at that point, fighting barbs and pushing through Morocco’s field units. It was no contest.
siege units also move slower, so if you can afford to take cities without them then you should, because waiting for catapults buys the enemy time.
I agree that melee, namely warrior->spear, will be higher lvl but I tend to start with zero exp warriors while I build catapults with barracks.
In addition if I dont go cover before drill with my spears they tend to die (yeah maybe I'm just not good enough), which means a lvl 4 spear for me is cover2 drill1.
And so I've ended up going swords+cats instead, they are so much tankier and come with a free cover promo.
Now you are maybe getting a LOT more done with no cover drill2 city assault spears, but I assume that window is very small?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
, walls and lighthouses. Between their coast and a river that ran through both cities, the approach was very difficult. Rabat was manageable with 20
CS base, It fell once I had my 3 range comp bows in position, and upgraded 1 of my horsemen to a knight. However, at 26
razing as a component of religious play. I didn't realize this until I reflected back on the game, but I didn't have any of the problems people are complaining about w.r.t. inquisitor's penalties being too draconian. This is because I a) never had a single missionary convert any of my own cities, and b) killed >200
unhappiness. If you were playing an otherwise peaceful game, but had an aggressive conversion-focused religion as a neighbor (India, Byzantium, etc.) I can see how this new system could be insanely painful to deal with. However, with only 1 turn of revolt, it's not enough to cause empire-wide happiness-related effects, but the loss of an entire 
