Quick Questions / Quick Answers

So... everyone is at war. Me + vassals and city state allies vs the AI block of four (all same team). Then Singapore (ally with massive influence points in my favour) is suddenly ally of the enemy!! How possible??
Version: Steam subscribed .94
 
So... everyone is at war. Me + vassals and city state allies vs the AI block of four (all same team). Then Singapore (ally with massive influence points in my favour) is suddenly ally of the enemy!! How possible??
Version: Steam subscribed .94

Three possibillities spring to mind.
Was their an act passed in world congress giving sphere of control over Singapore to specific civ.
Did a Spy do a coup in Singapore.
Also, a Great Diplomat can cause a real loss of points to other civs.
 
So... everyone is at war. Me + vassals and city state allies vs the AI block of four (all same team). Then Singapore (ally with massive influence points in my favour) is suddenly ally of the enemy!! How possible??
Version: Steam subscribed .94

The Steam version is very old and not maintained. New versions are posted as threads in this forum.
 
Three possibillities spring to mind.
Was their an act passed in world congress giving sphere of control over Singapore to specific civ. Nope.
Did a Spy do a coup in Singapore. Diplomacy is only allowed with City States you're not at war with...
Also, a Great Diplomat can cause a real loss of points to other civs. As above.
:confused:
 
Is there a way to play on a map with even more landmass than what you can have when selecting pangea with low sea level?
 
Thank you for the reply, about the next update, is there a way to know when the update is available? or do you have to follow this page thread ?
Yes, or you can join Vox Populi discord, any update is announced there.
 
Okay. I'll finish this game and get up to date...
Don't forget to unsubscribe from Steam first, otherwise, it will upload and overwrite with the old Steam version once you launch the mod screen.

Also, are you sure you play full Vox Populi??? I think the Steam version is just Community Patch (= bug fixes and AI improvements) And as it is very old it is probably not compatible with the rest of the Vox Populi package.
 
Is there a way to play on a map with even more landmass than what you can have when selecting pangea with low sea level?
There is a "Tectonic map script" mod in which you can mess around with landmass. I used to play with it a few times and there is a combination where you can have almost the entire map as land, but I stopped using it a long time ago. It should be still compatible I guess, if you want to give it a shot it might be what you're looking for.
 
hi everyone, im playing on earlier beta of the game (i think feb or jan) and im having problems with playstyle. It was kinda present in earlier versions but now it feels like it became to much. Any other policy tree than authority is feeling like gimping yourself. At lower levels of difficulty its ok to pick tradition or even progress, but at king+ ai snowballs to much. Worst thing is, at first you can still be revelant but when you are in renesans or industrail you just cant keep up with techs, production and its a slow process of dying to ai carpets (no room for new cities or no conquering other civs, small army due to lower amount of population ect). Also i witnessed strange malus of -60 combat effectivness due to misc reasons.anyone could give me tips on both of the topics? What is misc reasons and should i just assume that going any other tree than authotity is like upping the difficulty level by 1-2 levels?
 
hi everyone, im playing on earlier beta of the game (i think feb or jan) and im having problems with playstyle. It was kinda present in earlier versions but now it feels like it became to much. Any other policy tree than authority is feeling like gimping yourself. At lower levels of difficulty its ok to pick tradition or even progress, but at king+ ai snowballs to much. Worst thing is, at first you can still be revelant but when you are in renesans or industrail you just cant keep up with techs, production and its a slow process of dying to ai carpets (no room for new cities or no conquering other civs, small army due to lower amount of population ect). Also i witnessed strange malus of -60 combat effectivness due to misc reasons.anyone could give me tips on both of the topics? What is misc reasons and should i just assume that going any other tree than authotity is like upping the difficulty level by 1-2 levels?

So a few notes here. Its less authority versus everything as it is Warfare vs everything (which obviously authority helps you war).

Warfare has always been an OP strategy in civ 5, for a few key reasons:
  • The higher the difficulty, the better the AI's stuff becomes. When you war, you both gain this large amount of stuff, and deny it to an opponent. There is no equivalent to that in peaceful play. With peace its "I win, and my opponent wins....and we will see who wins more". With warfare its "I win, and they lose".
  • The nature of Civ 5 warfare. In civ 5, smart human players rarely lose troops, good tactics and smart positioning allow units to become "immortal". Therefore, an initial investment in military can reap nigh infinite rewards over the stretch of a game. Contrast that with Civ 4, in which in warfare both sides lost scores of units, as the two Stacks of Doom threw themselves at each other, and you had to sacrifice tons of siege engines to soften the defender up enough to actually make an attack. A player using their army to war is gathering a whole second set of resources (experience, pillage gold, new cities, unit kill bonuses with authority/terracotta army), and if they are playing well, will suffer a pretty low cost for that army. Two economic engines are better than one.
That is not a VP thing, its a Civ 5 thing. War is superior to peace (and even in RL it can be argued that most big empires did it through warfare). So there comes a point for every player, where they can handle more difficulty with war than they can with peace, when that happens depends on the player.

Now to your concern about science, its true the AI is getting better and better over time, and so your normal difficulty will get harder over time. For example I have been considering dropping back to Emperor myself, I was winning the vast majority on Immortal for a while, and was even winning a few Deity games every so often....but lately I'm getting crushed. the AI has just gotten too good, might be time to drop back. As long as the tier beneath me is competitive that's not an issue. So being an "Immortal-" player right now, I can definitely keep up with AIs on King and Emperor, so yes it can be done!

How do you do it? A few tricks:
  • ETRs to the big civs. You should be milking lots and lots of science and culture yields from your opponents. I rarely use ITRs past the early game if I'm that far behind in tech, better to leach.
  • Get Scholars in Residence and World Science Initiative (or the culture one can't think of the name right) passed. This will give underdogs a solid boost that will help you catch up.
  • Spies: Level up spies in CS quests or diplomats, and then once leveled steal techs from your enemies. Obviously in the current version spying has been shaken up, so not sure where we will end up with that.
  • Be patient: It does take a while to catch up to the AI but superior play will work eventually, but it will take a couple of eras.
If that is still not enough, enable Tech Trading. Tech Trading to me is a "peaceful civ boost", I mean sure warmongers can use it but a player with a strong economy can make lots of tech buys to help them catch up in tech. If you don't want to go down in difficulty this is a way to lower your current difficulty half way.
 
Morocco UP says, among the other stuff: "Trade routes yields [...] are not affected by distance". What does it exactly mean and how are trade route yields of other civs affected by distance?
 
Morocco UP says, among the other stuff: "Trade routes yields [...] are not affected by distance". What does it exactly mean and how are trade route yields of other civs affected by distance?

The furthest possible trade route is the baseline. Shorter trade routes provide less Gold; a trade route that is 40% of the longest possible distance has a -60% modifier, if I'm not mistaken.
 
So a few notes here. Its less authority versus everything as it is Warfare vs everything (which obviously authority helps you war).

Warfare has always been an OP strategy in civ 5, for a few key reasons:
  • The higher the difficulty, the better the AI's stuff becomes. When you war, you both gain this large amount of stuff, and deny it to an opponent. There is no equivalent to that in peaceful play. With peace its "I win, and my opponent wins....and we will see who wins more". With warfare its "I win, and they lose".
  • The nature of Civ 5 warfare. In civ 5, smart human players rarely lose troops, good tactics and smart positioning allow units to become "immortal". Therefore, an initial investment in military can reap nigh infinite rewards over the stretch of a game. Contrast that with Civ 4, in which in warfare both sides lost scores of units, as the two Stacks of Doom threw themselves at each other, and you had to sacrifice tons of siege engines to soften the defender up enough to actually make an attack. A player using their army to war is gathering a whole second set of resources (experience, pillage gold, new cities, unit kill bonuses with authority/terracotta army), and if they are playing well, will suffer a pretty low cost for that army. Two economic engines are better than one.
That is not a VP thing, its a Civ 5 thing. War is superior to peace (and even in RL it can be argued that most big empires did it through warfare). So there comes a point for every player, where they can handle more difficulty with war than they can with peace, when that happens depends on the player.

Now to your concern about science, its true the AI is getting better and better over time, and so your normal difficulty will get harder over time. For example I have been considering dropping back to Emperor myself, I was winning the vast majority on Immortal for a while, and was even winning a few Deity games every so often....but lately I'm getting crushed. the AI has just gotten too good, might be time to drop back. As long as the tier beneath me is competitive that's not an issue. So being an "Immortal-" player right now, I can definitely keep up with AIs on King and Emperor, so yes it can be done!

How do you do it? A few tricks:
  • ETRs to the big civs. You should be milking lots and lots of science and culture yields from your opponents. I rarely use ITRs past the early game if I'm that far behind in tech, better to leach.
  • Get Scholars in Residence and World Science Initiative (or the culture one can't think of the name right) passed. This will give underdogs a solid boost that will help you catch up.
  • Spies: Level up spies in CS quests or diplomats, and then once leveled steal techs from your enemies. Obviously in the current version spying has been shaken up, so not sure where we will end up with that.
  • Be patient: It does take a while to catch up to the AI but superior play will work eventually, but it will take a couple of eras.
If that is still not enough, enable Tech Trading. Tech Trading to me is a "peaceful civ boost", I mean sure warmongers can use it but a player with a strong economy can make lots of tech buys to help them catch up in tech. If you don't want to go down in difficulty this is a way to lower your current difficulty half way.
Thx for answer mate. I know that denying snowball through the war is best strategy to deafet ai and its always been like this, but it was possible to do it in kinda "side thing" when you went tradition, progress, artistry or statecraft. Now im just seeing that going anything other than authority > fealty is a bad idea in a long run. All it takes is one hyper aggresive ai like mongolia or really any ai that is snowballing and is in defensive map position and you cant do a thing if you dont have authority, the war is simply to money consuming in a long run and it dont bring anything for you. Im not talking that its unfair, i enjoy better ai, but in this state of game it feels like going authority>fealty is the only reasonable choice if you dont want to fakely increase difficulty lvl (gimping yourself). Anyone have good expiriences with playing on king+ without authority and fealty could share some insight, because i really feel like atm theres just one way to policy spec if you really want to win at higher difficulties and it gets a little boring and repetitive.
 
Thx for answer mate. I know that denying snowball through the war is best strategy to deafet ai and its always been like this, but it was possible to do it in kinda "side thing" when you went tradition, progress, artistry or statecraft. Now im just seeing that going anything other than authority > fealty is a bad idea in a long run. All it takes is one hyper aggresive ai like mongolia or really any ai that is snowballing and is in defensive map position and you cant do a thing if you dont have authority, the war is simply to money consuming in a long run and it dont bring anything for you. Im not talking that its unfair, i enjoy better ai, but in this state of game it feels like going authority>fealty is the only reasonable choice if you dont want to fakely increase difficulty lvl (gimping yourself). Anyone have good expiriences with playing on king+ without authority and fealty could share some insight, because i really feel like atm theres just one way to policy spec if you really want to win at higher difficulties and it gets a little boring and repetitive.
You can still win wars with progress, and if you win them, you're infrastructure, base yields, economy, and overall empire stability will be higher than that of an authority civ.
 
Even if you're not playing Authority you should be keeping your army as close to your max supply as possible. You can be best pals with some of the warmongers if you maintain a large army and do co-op wars with them (unless they're Monty or Bluetooth). Make them hate someone other than you!
 
The Steam version is very old and not maintained. New versions are posted as threads in this forum.
Confused. I downloaded auto installer and installed as per instructions. No other mods. Game seems identical to the one I'm posting about. What am I doing wrong??
Screenshot of downloaded installer and mod folder attached. Screenshot (5).png
 
I tried vox populi after playing civ 4 since 2005 for about 1400 hours. On the paper it sounds really interesting (ressource monopols, vassal States, New diplomat System with City States, good Ai that can handle 1up)
But in reality i have the feeling that

- i need to build nearly everything in every City cause of the happiness System. (even a prod monster City needs a lot of science buildings to avoid unhappiness)
- no buildings or options to increase cities output in money, science, prod...etc in percentages (50% more or Whatever) that leads to:
- I don't know how to decide where i have to build a building that gains for example +1science cause there is no way to specialise the cities.
- i have the feeling it makes a big different how you will build improvements. That leads to the fact that it is not that Important what happened IN the cities but what happened OUTSIDE on the map between the cities and what kind of improvements where build there.
- compared to civ 4 there is no really great way to compared myself with the other civs (what military Power Do they have, what technologies Do they have... Etc)

This all leads to the feeling that I don't really now what to build next, what to research next... Etc.

It feels equal what im doing.

So im asking:
Is it just me cause im caughed in the civ 4 feeling that im no more open to other gread games like vox populi?
Or have i understood some Features of vox populi wrong?

PS: sorry for my German-Englisch :)
 
Are puppets allowed to build military units, or is this a Venice thing. Never seen it before, until early in current game with Venice, where a puppeted city builds a warrior.
 
Back
Top Bottom